court and on appeal — are admissible and properly before us, and we disregard Ho’s declarations. 2. The district court correctly held cally pierce the corporate veil. See Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1134-35 (9th Cir.2003) (requiring showings of “unity of interest and ownership ... and ... fraud” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)); In re Rapid Settlements, 271 P.3d at 931 (inquiring into unity of interest). Finally, any alleged partnership between Ho and Danny Wong is irrelevant because, under Washington law, Wong acted as an agent of the partnership, but not an agent of each partner. See Wash. Rev.Code § 25.05.100(1) (“Each partner is an agent of the partnership .... ”); Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1366 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). 3. We reject Plaintiffs unsupported argument
holding that a limited partner does not have an interest right or title in the assets of the partnership holding that personal jurisdiction over partner did not follow from jurisdiction over partnership citing sher holding that in states with statutes identical in all relevant respects to wash revcode  25051001 the actions of one partner do not impute to another partner for purposes of personal jurisdiction holding actions of one partner may be imputed to partnership for personal jurisdiction purposes but are not without more imputed to other partners holding ohio revcode  230509d is the appropriate statute of limitations in  1983 actions