of Trs. of Univ. of Ill., 2011 WL 577108, at *5 (C.D.Ill.2011). This is a difficult burden for a plaintiff to meet. See Powers, 2011 WL 577108, at *5, citing Creative Trade Group, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Alliance, Inc., 2009 WL 3713345, at *6 (N.D.Ill.2009). Plaintiff has the ultimate burden of persuasion to demonstrate he is entitled to judgment on his claims as a matter of law. Powers, 2011 WL 577108, at *5. It has been recognized that “[sjummary judg ment in favor of the party with the burden of persuasion ... is inappropriate when the evidence is susceptible of different interpretations or inferences by the trier of fact.” Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 553, 119 S.Ct. 1545, 143 L.Ed.2d 731 (1999); see also Frobose v. Am. Sav. Loan Ass’n of Danville, 152 F.3d 602, 615 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default  when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient recognizing that questions of intent and credibility make it difficult to grant summary judgment in favor of the party with the burden of proof holding that a grant of summary judgment in favor of one party creates a final judgment allowing appellate review of denial of opposing partys summary judgment motion holding that movant is entitled to summary judgment when party with burden of proof fails to establish genuine fact issue holding that to survive a motion for summary judgment a party must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that partys case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial