
    Lynne KORFF, as Statutory Plaintiff and surviving mother of Timothy O’Brien deceased—on behalf of all Statutory Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, A MUNICIPALITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-16020
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted October 18, 2017 San Francisco, California
    FILED OCTOBER 31, 2017
    Kenneth Brent Vaughn, Grant <& Vaughn, PC, Luis P. Guerra, David Carey Shapiro, Law Offices of Luis P. Guerra LLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Lori V. Berke, Esquire, Jody Campbell Corbett, Berke Law Firm, PLLC, Sally A. Odegard, Esquire, Jesse M. Showalter, Counsel, Holloway Odegard Forrest Kelly & Kasparek PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

The purpose of summary judgment is to identify whether material fact questions exist, not to resolve them. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, the district court granted summary judgment on •claims arising out of a June 2012 confrontation between two Phoenix police officers and the late Timothy O’Brien at a public park. According to the officers, O’Brien was wielding a baseball bat, advancing towards them, and disregarding commands to stop and drop the bat when they fired their weapons. O’Brien’s- mother, Lynne Korff (“Korff’), contends that her son had dropped the bat.and was no longer advancing towards the officers when the fatal shots were fired. Taking the evidence put forward on O’Brien’s behalf and, as we must, making all inferences from the record evidence in O’Brien’s favor, we conclude that a jury must resolve this critical factual dispute. See Bracken v. Okura, 869 F.3d 771, 778 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Zetwick v. Cty. of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 440 (9th Cir. 2017)). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

This factual dispute is also central to the officers’ assertion that they are entitled to qualified immunity and Korffs state law negligence claim against the City of Phoenix.

Because nothing in the record suggests that the magistrate judge could not fairly and correctly apply the law on remand, we decline the suggestion that the case be assigned to a different judge. Neither our determination that summary judgment was erroneously granted nor the preservation of the appearance of justice warrants reassignment on remand. See Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 235 F.3d 1184, 1196 (9th Cir. 2000).

Our conclusions necessitate the vacatur of the fee and cost award below,

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate, for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . Korff also brings a related negligence claim under Arizona law.
     
      
      . For that reason, Appellees' Motion to Strike Korffs Amended Notice of Appeal is denied as moot.
     