Tony Peroulis v. Zachary Kriston , 540 F. App'x 807 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 04 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TONY PEROULIS, No. 12-15147
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00284-JCM-
CWH
v.
ZACHARY APOLLO KRISTON, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013 **
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Zachary Apollo Kriston appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment against him in plaintiff’s diversity action alleging, among other claims,
embezzlement, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument, and therefore, denies Kriston’s request for oral argument.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dealing, and alter ego liability. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s
embezzlement claim because Kriston failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether he misappropriated funds for his own personal use that plaintiff
entrusted to him for investment in a proposed business venture.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims
for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
because Kriston failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether the parties entered
into valid contracts that imposed obligations with whose letter and spirit Kriston
failed to comply, causing plaintiff damage. See Hilton Hotels v. Butch Lewis
Prods., Inc., 862 P.2d 1207, 1209 (Nev. 1993) (per curiam) (elements breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing claim); Bernard v. Rockhill Dev. Co., 734 P.2d
1238, 1240 (Nev. 1987) (per curiam) (elements of breach of contract claim).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s alter
ego liability claim because Kriston failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether
Kriston lacked a controlling interest in the two entities through which he solicited
funds for investment in the business venture at issue, and whether the corporate
2 12-15147
form was abused to hide money and avoid liabilities. See LFC Mktg. Group, Inc.
v. Loomis, 8 P.3d 841, 845-46 (Nev. 2000) (per curiam) (discussing piercing the
corporate veil and “reverse” piercing based on alter ego liability).
Kriston’s contentions regarding the need for more discovery, and with
respect to plaintiff’s alleged fraud against him, fraud on the court, and abuse of
process are unpersuasive.
Kriston’s requests for disqualification of plaintiff’s counsel, to strike
plaintiff’s supplemental excerpts of records, and to reinstate his mandamus
petition, set forth in his reply brief, are denied.
Kriston’s motion for judicial notice is granted. See Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice, set forth in his answering brief, is
granted. See id.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-15147