N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KAREN E. ELLINGSTAD; C LIFFORD W . TAGAB AN,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. KAKE TRIB AL C ORPOR ATION; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s, and M IC HAEL J. B AR TLETT,

De fe nda n t. No. 22-35569 D.C . No. 1:21-c v-00008-SLG
M EM OR ANDUM *

KAREN E. ELLINGSTAD; C LIFFORD W . TAGAB AN,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts, FR ED W . TR IEM , C ounse l for Pla intiffs,

Appe lla nt, No. 22-35768 D.C . No. 1:21-c v-00008-SLG



# F IL ED DEC 11 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.v.

KAKE TRIB AL C ORPOR ATION; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s, and M IC HAEL J. B AR TLETT,

De fe nda n t. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska Sharon L. Gle a son, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 7, 2023 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c K EOW

N, N.R . SM ITH, a

n d SANC HEZ, C irc u it Judge s. Kare n Ellingstad a

nd C lifford Ta ga

ba n, he re i na fte r pla intiffs, a ppe a l from the d istric t c o urt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to Ka

k e Triba l C orporation a

nd its offic e rs a nd e m ploy e e s na

m e d a s individual de fe nda nts. Pla intiffs a

n d the i r attorne y Fre d Trie m

a lso c ha lle nge the distric t c ourt’ s a ward of sa

nc tions unde r R ule 11 of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e dure . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). 21. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing pla intiffs’
m otion to sta

y or de fe r c o nside ra tion of sum m ary judgm e nt. Suc h a m otion m ust

“ show[]
. . . tha

t, for spe c ifie d re a sons,” a pa rty “ c annot pre se nt fa c ts e sse ntia l to justify its opposition”

to sum m ary judgm e nt without furthe

r disc ove ry . Fe d . R
. C iv. P. 56(d). “ A distric t c ourt a buse s its disc re t ion” in de ny ing suc h a m otion only if the re que sting pa

rty “ c an show tha t a llowing a d ditiona l disc ove ry would have pre c lude d sum

m ary judgm e nt.” Mic he lman v
. Linc oln N at’l Life Ins. C o. , 685 F.3d 887, 892 (9th C ir. 2012). W he re “ the inform at ion sought . . . would not have she d light on a

ny of the issue s upon whic h the sum m ary judgm e nt de c ision
wa s ba se d [,] . . . the a dditiona l disc ove ry would not ha ve pre c lude d sum

m ary judgm e nt a

nd wa s prope rly

de nie d.” Qualls e

x re l. Qualls v
. Blue

C ross of C al., Inc
. , 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th C ir. 1994). He re , pla intiffs sought disc ove ry into how de fe nda

nts re late d to one anothe r, in orde r to de m onstra

te tha t de fe nda nts we re re s ponsiblefor invoic e s and thre ats pla i ntiffs a lle ge d the y

ha d re c e ive d. Howe ve r, this inform ation “ would not ha ve she d light on . . . the

issue s upon whic h the sum m ary judgm e nt de c ision wa s ba se d,” i d. , tha

t is, pla i ntiffs’ fa ilure to de m onstra te tha t the invoic e s a

nd thre ats
e xiste d. As thedistric t c ourt note d, invoic e s a n d thre ats re c e ive d

by pla intiffs would pre sum a

bly be in the ir posse ssion, but pla i ntiffs ne ithe r pre se n t e d the m nor 3spe c ifie d in the ir m otion for de fe rra l of sum m ary judgm e nt why

the y c ould not do so. Thus, the

m o tion wa s prope rly

de nie d. 2. Pla intiffs do not c ha lle nge the distric t c ourt’ s c o nc l usion tha t the
e vide nc e be fore it did not e sta b lish a ge nuine fa c tua l disputea s to thec la im pla i ntiffs ple a de d in the ir c om pla int. Inste a d, the y

argue tha t the y m a y be e ntitle d to re lie f unde r othe r le ga l the o rie s, or tha t the y should ha

v e be e n pe rm itte d to
am e nd the ir c om

pla int. The se argum e nts a re forfe ite d. Although “ sum m ary judgm e nt doe s not follow if the pla intiff is e ntitle d ‘ t o re lie f on som e [a l te rnative ] le ga l the ory ’ and ‘ re que ste d a s m uc h,’ ” pla intiffs ne v e r a ske d to a m e nd the ir
c om pla i nt, nor did they

m a ke any a lte rnative re que st prior to the distric t c o urt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt de c ision. Alv are z v . Hill , 518 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting C

rull v
. GEM Ins. C

o. , 58 F.3d 1386, 1391 (9th C ir. 1995)); se e also Se lfRe alization Fe l low

s hip C hurc h v . Ananda C

hurc h of Se lf-Re alization , 59 F.3d 902, 912 (9th C i r. 1995) (“ A pa rty doe s not prope rly

pre se rve an issue for a

ppe a l by
ra ising it for the

first tim e in a

m otion for re c onside ra tion.” ). Pla intiffs only sugge s te d in pa ssing (in the ir post-judgme nt brie f opposing sa nc tions) tha

t the y ought to bea l lowe d to a

m e nd. 3. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing ora l a rgum e nt
re ga rding sum

m ary judgm e n t . Suc h a

de nia l “ doe s not c onstitute re ve rsible e rror 4in the a

bse nc e of pre

j udic e .” Partridge

v . Re ic h , 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th C i r. 1998) (c ita tion omitte d). On a

p pe a l , pla intiffs’ pe rfunc tory argum e nt doe s not a lle ge any pre j udic e suffe re d due to the distric t c o urt ha ving re a c he d a de c ision on this m atte r without ora l a

rgum e nt. 4. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in a

warding sa

nc tions. The
c om pla i nt a sse rte d tha

t de fe nda nts pe riodic a lly

se nt invoic e s for “ de m

urra ge ” to pla i ntiffs—

Ellingsta d a

nd Ta ga ba n . The re c ord e vide nc e supports a n infe re nc e that the invoic e s in que stion we re not se n t by the de fe nda

nts a nd we re not se nt to the p la intiffs, but ra

the r to a ppe lla nt Trie m . The distric t c ourt’ s c onc l usion tha t Trie m kne w or should ha

ve known tha

t the fa c tua l c onte ntions in pla intiffs’
c om pla i nt la c ke d e vide ntia

ry support is there fore not “ illogic a l, im pla usible , or without support in infe

re nc e s tha t m ay be drawn from

fa c ts in the re c ord.” In re Orac leC orp. Se c . Litig. , 627 F.3d 376, 385 (9th C ir. 2010). Pla intiffs c onte nd for the first tim e he re tha t ora l a rgum e nt re ga

rding
sa nc tions wa s ne c e ssa

ry “ to c o nside r the inc om e , we a lth, [a nd] sta tion in life

of the
sa nc tion ta rge t.” Howe ve r, “ [n] othing in R ule 11 m andate s” this re sult. C hristian
v . Matte l , Inc
. , 286 F.3d 1118, 1125 n.4 (9th C ir. 2002). Furthe r, be c a use pla intiffs did not pre s e nt this a

rgum e n t to thedistric t

c o urt, it is forfe ite d. AFFIRM E D.
5