"'"The standard for deciding a summary judgment motion is well-established, as is the standard of review on appeal." "A defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of producing evidence showing that one or more elements of the plaintiff's cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to produce specific facts showing a triable issue as to the cause of action or the defense. Despite the shifting burdens of production, the defendant, as the moving party, always bears the ultimate burden of persuasion as to whether summary judgment is warranted. " "On appeal, we review de novo an order granting summary judgment. The trial court must grant a summary judgment motion when the evidence shows that there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In making this determination, courts view the evidence, including all reasonable inferences supported by that evidence, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. " ' " (American Way Cellular, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1050.) "'On review of a summary judgment, the appellant has the burden of showing error, even if he did not bear the burden in the trial court. . . . " . . . As with an appeal from any judgment, it is the appellant's responsibility to affirmatively demonstrate error and, therefore, to point out the triable issues the appellant claims are present by citation to the record and any supporting authority. In other words, review is limited to issues which have been adequately raised and briefed." ' " (Golightly v. Molina (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1519.) Summary judgment is proper only if there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (c).) A defendant moving for summary judgment must show that one or more elements of each cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense. (Id., subd. (p)(2).) To satisfy this burden, a moving defendant must present evidence and cannot merely point out through argument the absence of evidence to support an element of the plaintiff's cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855 & fn. 23 (Aguilar).) We review the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment de novo and independently determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Intel Corp. v. Hamidi (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1342, 1348.) The Court considers all of the evidence set forth in the moving and opposing papers, except that as to which objections have been made and sustained. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (c).) The Court liberally construes the evidence in favor of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve all doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party. (Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 460.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c) provides that summary judgment is properly granted when there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (c).) Moving defendants can meet their burden by demonstrating that "a cause of action has no merit," which they can do by showing that "one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be separately established ... ." ( 437c, subd. (o)(1); see also Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479, 486-487 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 20, 926 P.2d 1114.) Once defendants meet this burden, the burden shifts to plaintiff to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact. ( 437c, subd. (p)(2).) On appeal "we review a grant of summary judgment de novo; we must decide independently whether the facts not subject to triable dispute warrant judgment for the moving party as a matter of law. " (Intel Corp. v. Hamidi (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1342, 1348 1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 32, 71 P.3d 296.) Put another way, the Court exercises its independent judgment, and decide whether undisputed facts have been established that negate plaintiff's claims. (Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 487.) The Court held in Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 309, 320, that: "We exercise an independent review to determine if the defendant moving for summary judgment met its burden of establishing a complete defense or of negating each of the plaintiff's theories and establishing that the action was without merit." (Accord, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 945, 972.) But other principles guide us as well, including that "we accept as true the facts ... in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them." (Morgan v. Regents of University of California (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 67.) And the Court must "'view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the losing party' and 'liberally construe plaintiff's evidentiary submissions and strictly scrutinize defendant's own evidence, in order to resolve any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in plaintiff's favor.'" (McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88, 96-97.)