What would be the grounds for appeal and the grounds for a counter suit?
First off would be the applicability of the granting of summary judgment. Summary judgment is only appropriate when there are no viable claims for relief and there are no questions of material fact. They can argue that there were questions of fact that were not suitable for resolution at summary judgment, but rather required a trial. They can claim that there are existing questions of fact that the judge improperly resolved.
Second would be that the judge misapplied the law in granting the summary judgment. I did notice that the judge stated that the claim(s) were time-barred because of the passing of the statute of limitations. One of the traditional arguments in favor of allowing a lapse of the statute of limitations is that the plaintiff did not know, nor could have reasonably known of the facts supporting the underlying claim. As stated in the Minute Entry, the judge found that the Plaintiff knew or should have known of the claim soon after the incident and that the one-year clock for tolling the claim would have started then and that instead approximately three years passed from the time of the incident to the filing of the Complaint.
Lastly, Arizona rules of procedure and case law do allow for amending complaints. However, while lenient it is not intended to continue an action after it reasonably should have been properly pled.
The plaintiff, if he files an appeal, must obtain a bond for the appeal. That will cost money. Additionally, depending on his contract with his attorney, appellate fees would accrue. His contract with his attorney could conceivably be a contract that pays the attorney his fee from any judgment or settlement received, plus whatever costs accrued during the case. Costs would be things like copies, postage, deposition fees and other monies that may have been advanced by the attorney for items required in order to pursue the case. Think of it as anything other than professional fees.
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the case should not be appealed. Even if the plaintiff (petitioner in appellate proceedings) prevails at appeal, he would still need to go to trial and have a jury find that the actions of the defendants was actionable and recoverable. I just don't see that happening.
Does that help a bit?
p.s. - I forgot to respond to the counter suit question. I believe that any counterclaim should have been brought within the action, therefore my best guess is that I don't think it likely a counterclaim will be filed.