
    MILLENIUM HOLDING GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUTURA, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-16232.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 7, 2009.
    
    Filed Nov. 25, 2009.
    Joel D. Henriod, Esquire, Daniel F. Pol-senberg, William R. Urga, Esquire, Lewis & Roca, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Patrick G. Byrne, Esquire, Daron Dorsey, Scott C. Sandberg, Esquire, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Edward F. Malone, Esquire, Barack Ferrazzano Kirsehbaum & Nagelberg LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: THOMPSON and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and ALDRICH, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Ann Aldrich, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Millenium Holding Group, Inc. (“Milleni-um”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in its suit against Su-tura, Inc. (“Sutura”), Fusion Capital Fund II, LLC (“Fusion Fund”), and Fusion Capital Partners, LLC (“Fusion Partners”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court.

Millenium claims that the district court erred by failing to consider its claim that Sutura repudiated the agreement before Millenium’s performance was due. Because Millenium did not properly raise this argument before the district court, and no exceptional circumstances justify consideration on appeal, we decline to address the claim and affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Millenium also claims that the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Sutura, Fusion Fund, and Fusion Partners on the conspiracy claim. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Millenium failed to produce evidence that gives rise to a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a conspiracy occurred. See In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir.1999) (finding that a plaintiff must present either direct evidence that a conspiracy occurred or circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that a conspiracy occurred to survive a motion for summary judgment on a conspiracy claim).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     