2 an ape ong OS et yeu dent hae
but A Summ ag n_You hke EilhHe) +0 Kel&P
have EVickeniee Se ON You Ao Kor
fRoUeE YouR Clam.

2) pid He Diakicr anld Appents Loukb ERE
When they @karlted Ald AP iRined
Dehadast's Motenl tok S*nMey Sul& meric
IOhen Heke iS SVickwee submittect
by App All nde thy PROVES SA BKE (KE
Len ule Asputes 7 to MW Atetiiat. Facts?
By Shbule Con steu iG & Prose plant tf 's
Comp lhialt libeenlly hive TALE SAME
ok MoKRE ULERAI Hy Fetanne to A
f¥e se plpintiff wits GOVEN MEL.
Hes, DdISORAER? ,

4) oes He Court have Av pbhSations 7
Point Out BEROBS pide bY PK) SE Pleuthth
As Well AS BVE op poKtunlite, To COMKE CF
stead OF Sdle/y Con AEINiNG ANA

Whether the district court and appeals court erred when they granted the defendant's motion to dismiss despite evidence submitted by the plaintiff that disputes material facts