NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CRAIG GOTTLIEB; SAUD A.H. No. 18-17267 KHOKHAR,

D.C. No. 5:17-cv-06860-EJD

Plaintiffs-Appellants, and MEMORANDUM* GIMMIGELT, INC.,

Plaintiff, v. ALPHABET INC.; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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). 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 18-17267