But a summary judgment means there is no dispute of material fact, so these facts weren't disputed. Hard to believe there was no dispute, but it sounded like they made presentations and arguments to the judge, they were just so poor there was no doubt. Maybe Albaby can enlighten us on this process and how it worked.

Sure.

In both a motion for summary judgment and the actual trial, the outcome depends on the evidence that the parties have to support their points. That's what makes them different than a motion to dismiss or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, where all that's at issue is what the parties claim is true. Here, the judge is looking at the evidence to support the various assertions.

In a motion for summary judgment, though, the judge is not weighing the strength of such evidence - just whether enough evidence exists on both sides of a relevant point to constitute a genuine dispute. So if Party A has evidence to prove X is true, and Party B has evidence to prove X is not true, the role of the judge is not to weigh their evidence against each other to see who establishes that point under the evidentiary standard. That happens at the trial. The judge's role is to see whether the parties have any evidence that's potentially sufficient to prove up their side of the disputed issue.

So for example, if one party has a witness that will testify that X happened, and the other party has a witness that will testify that something other than X happened, the trial is where the finder of fact (jury, or judge in a bench trial) will hear both their direct testimony and their responses under cross examination, weigh the credibility of the witnesses and any impeaching or supporting evidence, and make a determination about whether X has been proven or not. At summary judgment, the judge is just reviewing their depositions and what the attorneys say will be the content of their testimony (more or less) - not weighing the credibility or sufficiency of that testimony. If one party has a witness to say that X happened, and the other party has no material evidence whatsoever to contest that X happened, there's no point in making the witness come in and testify at trial.