Cynthia Wheeler; Curtis Wheeler v. County of Orange, a political subdivision of the State of California, ITS PUBLIC…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CYNTHIA WHEELER; CURTIS
WHEELER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
ROGER E. NAGHASH, counsel for
plaintiffs,
Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political
subdivision of the State of California, ITS
PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION, ITS
CITATION PROCESSING CENTER;
SHANE L. SILEBY, individually, and in his
official capacity as Director, County of
Orange-Public Works; SOCORRO
VILLEGAS, individually, and in her official
capacity as Officer; DOES, 1 Through 100,
Inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-55662
D.C. No.
8:20-cv-01264-MCS-DFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
NOV 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Submitted October 19, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and R. COLLINS,*** District
Judge.
Plaintiffs Cynthia Wheeler and Curtis Wheeler (“the Wheelers”) appeal the
district court’s decision to take Defendants County of Orange, Shane L. Sileby, and
Socorro Villegas’ (collectively, Defendants) motion to dismiss the Wheelers’ First
Amended Complaint (FAC) under submission without oral argument. They also
appeal the district court’s decision to dismiss some of their claims. The Wheelers’
attorney, Roger E. Naghash, appeals the district court’s decision to sanction him
for failing to appear at the hearing for the motion. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
“We review de novo a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.” Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc., 985 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th
Cir. 2021) (citing Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196, 1198 (9th Cir. 2010)). We
review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decisions not to hold oral
argument on Defendants’ motion and to impose sanctions against Naghash. See
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Spradlin v. Lear Siegler Mgmt. Servs. Co., Inc., 926 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir. 1991)
(reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a request for oral argument); Am.
Unites for Kids v. Rousseau, 985 F.3d 1075, 1087 (9th Cir. 2021) (reviewing for
abuse of discretion the imposition of sanctions).
1. The Wheelers argue that the district court violated their notice and due
process rights by taking Defendants’ motion under submission without oral
argument. There is no constitutional due process right to oral argument on a
motion, Toquero v. I.N.S., 956 F.2d 193, 196 n.4 (9th Cir. 1992), and “[b]y rule or
order, [a] court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs,
without oral hearings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b).
2. The Wheelers argue that their causes of action are not time-barred because
Defendants’ injuries against the Wheelers are “ongoing.” Almost all of the
allegations in the FAC relate to events that occurred more than six months before
the Wheelers filed a written claim under Cal. Gov’t Code Section 911.2 and
Plaintiffs point to no well-pleaded factual allegations in the FAC showing an
ongoing violation. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“To survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”).
3. Naghash violated the Central District of California’s Local Rule 7-14,
which states that “[c]ounsel for the moving party and the opposing party shall be

-- 3 of 4 --

4
present on the hearing date.” Sanctions may be imposed for violations of a district
court’s local rules, Smith v. Frank, 923 F.2d 139, 142 (9th Cir. 1991), and “we give
great deference to a district court’s interpretation of its own local rules.” Vogel v.
Harbor Plaza Ctr., LLC, 893 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Bias v.
Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --