787 Fed.Appx. 477 (9th Cir. 2019), 18-17267, Gottlieb v. Alphabet Inc.

Docket Nº:18-17267
Citation:787 Fed.Appx. 477
Party Name:Craig GOTTLIEB; Saud A.H. Khokhar, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Gimmigelt, Inc., Plaintiff, v. ALPHABET INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Attorney:Craig Gottlieb, Pro Se Saud A.H. Khokhar, Pro Se Diane Doolittle, Attorney, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, Victoria Parker, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Ellyde R. Thompson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, for Defenda...
Judge Panel:Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:December 13, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Page 477

787 Fed.Appx. 477 (9th Cir. 2019)

Craig GOTTLIEB; Saud A.H. Khokhar, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Gimmigelt, Inc., Plaintiff,

v.

ALPHABET INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-17267

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

December 13, 2019

Submitted December 11, 2019 [*]

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

Craig Gottlieb, Pro Se

Saud A.H. Khokhar, Pro Se

Diane Doolittle, Attorney, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, Victoria Parker, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Ellyde R. Thompson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 5:17-cv-06860-EJD

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Page 478

MEMORANDUM[**]

Craig Gottlieb and Saud A.H. Khokhar appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in their action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Kam-Ko Bio-Pharm Trading Co., Ltd. v. Mayne Pharma (USA) Inc., 560 F.3d 935, 939 (9th Cir. 2009). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Godecke ex rel. United States v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 937 F.3d 1201, 1213 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.

Summary judgment on Gottlieb and Khokhar’s claims was proper because allowing Gottlieb and Khokhar to advocate the claims pro se "would eviscerate the requirement that corporations and other entities be represented by counsel." D-Beam, Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 974 (9th Cir. 2004).

We do not consider Gottlieb and Khokhar’s contentions regarding the district court’s summary judgment on plaintiff Gimmigelt, Inc.’s claims.

AFFIRMED.

---------

Notes:

[*] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

[**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

---------

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP