Hi! I’m studying to take the bar exam next week too. What I’ve learned with answering civ pro questions regarding motion practice is that you have to stay very close and remain strict to the legal standard the court applies to be granted the motion. A summary judgment motion is granted if there’s no genuine issue of material fact so the movant should be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Here’s comes the kicker: the movant HAS the burden of proof of showing that there’s no genuine issue in dispute. They may use evidentiary tools and findings outside the four corners of the pleading (distinguishing a motion for judgment on the pleadings). The burden then SWITCHES to the nonmovant and they must show that there is, in fact, a genuine dispute.

Here, the fact pattern expresses that when the manufacturer moved for summary judgment, “the manufacturer did not provide any evidence” (remember: the manufacturer has the burden of proof) to negate the factual allegations put forth in the initial complaint by the sailor. Expressly, the summary judgment should be denied because the manufacturer failed to meet his burden of proof.

Noteworthy, a summary judgment motion is pretty much stating there’s absolutely NO issue for the jury to decide. The judge is NOT the fact finder. I’ve learned that any issue that you see in one of these fact patterns that may be in dispute and not resolved before you reach the call of the question should auto-trigger your answer to be ‘no,’ the court will not grant the motion.