Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Jon. W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Donn Kessler and Judge John C. Gemmill joined.
T H O M P S O N, Judge:
1
Appellant Andrew Snyder (Snyder), a former Arizona State
University student, brought various claims against Arizona State
University/the Arizona Board of Regents (collectively, ASU) over what he
alleged was his right to admission into ASUs WP Carey School of Business.
The trial court granted ASUs motion for summary judgment, denied
Snyders request to amend his complaint, and awarded attorneys fees
against Snyder pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 12-341.01
(2010). Snyder appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
2
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Lewis v.
Debord, 236 Ariz. 57, 59, 5, 335 P.3d 1136, 1138 (App. 2014). Summary
judgment should be granted if the facts produced in support of the claim
or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence
required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion
advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense. Orme Sch. v. Reeves,
166 Ariz. 301, 309, 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990). Summary judgment is
appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Johnson v. Earnhardt's
Gilbert Dodge, Inc., 212 Ariz. 381, 385, 15, 132 P.3d 825, 829 (2006).
3
After the moving party comes forward with evidence it
believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the
burden shifts to the non-moving party, who must call the court's attention
to evidence overlooked or ignored by the moving party or must explain
why the motion should otherwise be denied. Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v.
Thruston, 218 Ariz. 112, 115, 119, 14, 26, 180 P.3d 977, 980, 984 (App.
2008); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (Supp. 2013).
4
The party opposing summary judgment shall file a
statement of the facts in dispute which establish genuine issues of material
fact. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). The party opposing summary judgment may
Summary Judgment
5
Although Snyder filed a response to ASUs motion for
summary judgment, he did not file a separate statement of facts, submit an
affidavit, or dispute key facts at issue in this case as is required by Arizona
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e)(4).
6
These basic facts are not merely undisputed on summary
judgment, but were testified to as part of Snyders deposition of July 12,
2013. Snyder entered ASU as a pre-business exploratory student in the fall
of 2007. 1 He was not granted admission directly into the WP Carey
Bachelor of Science degree program. In fall 2007, WP Carey revised the
admission standards for the Bachelor of Science program.2
All prebusiness students were notified by email of the changes on October 19, 2007.
Thereafter, a student could be admitted by direct admission, for students
meeting both the GPA and SAT/ACT score standards, or by a discretionary
process called Portfolio Review. The email advised students that
Snyder graduated from high school in the spring of 2007 with a 2.79 GPA,
an SAT score of 890, and an ACT score of 22.
1
In fact, Desch did not have the authority to grant such an override.
5
:jt