Gimmigelt, Inc., Plaintiff, v. ALPHABET INC (2019)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Craig GOTTLIEB; Saud A.H. Khokhar, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Gimmigelt, Inc., Plaintiff, v. ALPHABET INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: December 13, 2019
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
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
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.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.