and fired North Bay’s employees, and that Elmar Lee Pettit made the decision that North Bay would be non-union. Nor does appellants’ evidence contradict appellees’ proffer that Elmar Lee Pettit transferred Nor-Cal accounts to North Bay. Elmar Lee Pettit does declare that “I told [customers] I could not help them, that they should call North Bay Plumbing.” (C.R. 229.) But these general denials of involvement in North Bay’s affairs conflict with his sworn statements on North Bay’s business license that he would “supervis[e] and control” North Bay’s plumbers. Such internal inconsistencies in a party’s own testimony fail to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether North Bay was the alter ego of Nor-Cal. See Radobenko v. Automated Equip. Corp., 520 F.2d 540, 544 (9th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). 2 Intent Even though the district court
holding that a plaintiff cannot create an issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment through an affidavit that contradicts prior testimony holding that mere speculation does not satisfy the nonmoving partys burden of establishing a dispute of material fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment holding that the necessity of choosing between the appellants two conflicting versions of a material fact does not defeat summary judgment holding that conflicting expert evidence regarding function establishes material issue of fact holding that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact