Craig Gottlieb; Saud A.h. Khokhar v. Alphabet Inc.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRAIG GOTTLIEB; SAUD A.H.
KHOKHAR,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
and
GIMMIGELT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALPHABET INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-17267
D.C. No. 5:17-cv-06860-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Craig Gottlieb and Saud A.H. Khokhar appeal pro se from the district
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-17267
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.

-- 2 of 2 --