Sun Group U.S.A. Harmony City, Inc. v. Crrc Corporation, Ltd.

facts’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).

24-3680 The district court also correctly excluded Sun Group’s expert’s legal

conclusion that CRRC MA was CRRC’s alter ego. See Nationwide Transp. Fin. v.

Cass Info. Sys., Inc., 523 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[A]n expert witness

cannot give an opinion as to [his] legal conclusion, i.e., an opinion on an ultimate

issue of law.”).

Sun Group has not shown that any other evidentiary rulings constituted an

abuse of discretion. Moreover, even if the excluded evidence1 were considered, it

would not create a genuine dispute of material fact as to either prong of the

stringent alter-ego test. See Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Ct., 83 Cal. App.

4th 523, 538 (2000) (requiring both a unity of interest and ownership and an

inequitable result). The district court correctly concluded that the evidence—

which does not show commingling of funds or records, inadequate capitalization,

disregard of corporate formalities, diversion of funds for CRRC’s use, or that

CRRC MA functioned as a “shell” for CRRC—established nothing more than a

1 The excluded evidence consisted of: (1) CRRC’s annual financial…