NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
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.
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 
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.