NOT FOR PUBLICATION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, indiv idually, 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 APPEALS2 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 h earing for the motion

. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291

. W e 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 decision s not to hold oral

argument on Defendants’ motion and to impose sanction s against Naghash. S ee

** 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

. T here 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 be4

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 “ w e 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.