Gimmigelt, Inc., Plaintiff, v. ALPHABET INC (2019)

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.