Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Greenwalt v. Sun City W. Fire Dist., 250 F.Supp.2d 1200, 1204 (9th Cir.2003). In applying this standard, the court must construe all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Matusushita Elec. Indust. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 547 (1986). Summary judgment is not proper if material factual issues exist for trial. Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir.1995), cert denied,
516 U.S. 1171 (1996). Once the moving party has carried its burden of indicating that there is no genuine issue of material fact, Rule 56(e) “requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by ... affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” ’ Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)); Brinson v. Lina Rose Joint Venture, 53 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir.1995); Tavlor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989). The nonmoving party must “make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Id.
at 322. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party's position is insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the nonmovant. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).