Thus, as the moving parties, they may discharge their burden simply by showing the non-existence of an essential element of the non-moving party's case. See Kim v. Hong, 1997 Guam 11 P 6. In this case, the non-moving party -- the plaintiff (Attorney General) -- bears the burden of persuasion at trial, and must come forward with sufficient evidence that there is a genuine issue of fact that remains in dispute, and not simply rely on the allegations in the pleadings. See Kim, 1997 Guam 11 P 7; Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 631 (9th Cir. 1988); 10A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Civil § 2739. If the non-moving party fails in this regard, then summary judgment should be granted for the defendants. Kim, 1997 Guam 11 P 8; Boulware v. Parker, 457 F.2d 450, 452 (3rd Cir. 1972); Dyer v. MacDougall, 201 F.2d 265, 268 (2nd Cir. 1952).

The movant may "satisf[y] and discharge[] its burden by establishing the absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case." Kim v. Hong, 1997 Guam 11 ¶ 6 (citing Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)). If the movant discharges its burden in this regard, the non-movant "must produce at least some significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint." Edwards, 2000 Guam 27 ¶ 7 (citing Iizuka Corp., 1997 Guam 10 ¶ 7). If the non-movant "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an essential element to that party's case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial," then the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

"Stated simply, there is a trial issue if there is sufficient evidence for a jury to return a verdict in the non-moving party's favor." Kim v. Hong, 1997 Guam 11 ¶ 8 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)).

"Stated simply, there is a trial issue if there is sufficient evidence for a jury to return a verdict in the non-moving party's favor." Kim v. Hong, 1997 Guam 11 ¶ 8 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)).

"Stated simply, there is a trial issue if there is sufficient evidence for a jury to return a verdict in the non-moving party's favor." Kim v. Hong, 1997 Guam 11 ¶ 8 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250).B. Whether a Genuine Issue of Material Fact Exists that Scott's Termination Violated the Public Policy Exception to the At-Will Employment Doctrine, Giving Rise to his Claim for Wrongful Termination

Iizuka, 1997 Guam 10 at P8. If the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact, then summary judgment is properly granted. See Kim v. Hong, 1997 Guam 11, P8. PSEC raises several points of error on appeal. First, PSEC argues that the trial court erred in granting Rule 54(b) certification as to Melwani's cross-claim. Second, PSEC asserts that the trial court erred in entering judgment while the proceedings were subject to a stay issued by the District Court in PSEC's bankruptcy action.

If the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact, then summary judgment is properly granted. See Kim v. Hong, 1997 Guam 11, P8.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Villalon v. Hawaiian Rock Products, Inc., 2001 Guam 5, P7 (citing Kim v. Hong, 1997 Guam 11, P5) (additional citations omitted). Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, 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. "

This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Title 7 GCA §§ 3107 and 3108(a) (1994). A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Guam v. Marfega Trading Co., 1998 Guam 4, P9; Kim v. Hong, 1997 Guam 11, P5; Iizuka Corp. v. Kawasho Int'l (Guam), Inc., 1997 Guam 10, P7. Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. . . ." Guam R. Civ. P. 56(c).

A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Guam v. Marfega Trading Co., 1998 Guam 4, P 9 ; Kim v. Hong, 1997 Guam 11, P5; Iizuka Corp. v. Kawasho Int'l, Inc., 1997 Guam 10, P 7. Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact . . . ."