Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

In the Matter of the Detention of

M.N.

No. 83306-5-I 

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

CHUN, J. — A superior court commissioner ordered M.N. to 180 days of 

involuntary treatment. M.N. moved to revise the commissioner’s order. The trial

court denied M.N.’s motion on the pleadings without hearing oral argument. M.N. 

appeals, contending the failure to hear oral argument violated his right to due 

process. For the reasons below, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

M.N. has a long history of involuntary commitments, including less 

restrictive alternative (LRA) placements. On August 21, 2020, Western State 

Hospital staff petitioned to commit M.N. for an additional 180 days under 

chapter 71.05 RCW, claiming he was gravely disabled. The petition 

recommended an LRA placement when available. 

A Pierce County Superior Court commissioner held a hearing on the 

petition on September 14. Dr. Wendi Wachsmuth, a clinical psychologist, 

testified that M.N.’s symptoms were consistent with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. 

The commissioner found that M.N. was gravely disabled and ordered 180 days of 
No. 83306-5-I/2

2

involuntary treatment. The commissioner also found him eligible for an LRA 

placement.

M.N. moved to revise the commissioner’s ruling under Pierce County 

Local Rule (PCLR) 7(a)(12). He sought revision of the commissioner’s findings 

that he suffers from a behavioral health disorder and is gravely disabled and 

made written arguments supporting his motion.

A Pierce County Superior Court judge entered a ruling denying M.N.’s 

motion without hearing oral argument on the motion. The ruling provided that, 

“This order was entered based on the pleadings filed. Due to the COVID-19 

public health emergency, there were no personal appearances” and stated that 

the court “reviewed the records and files herein.”

M.N. appeals. 

II. ANALYSIS

M.N. says the trial court violated his right to due process when it ruled on 

his motion for revision without hearing oral argument.

1

 He contends he has a 

procedural due process right to present oral argument in this context and that 

PCLR 7(a)(12)(A) mandated that the trial court allow oral argument. The State 

says that procedural due process does not require oral argument on a motion 

and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion by not holding a hearing. 

 

1 The parties agree that this appeal is not moot. See In re Det. of M.K., 168 Wn. 

App. 621, 625, 279 P.3d 897 (2012) (holding that an appeal of an involuntary 

commitment which has lapsed is not moot because the commitment “may have adverse 

consequences on future involuntary commitment determinations”). 
No. 83306-5-I/3

3

We conclude the trial court did not violate M.N.’s right to due process.2

“We review alleged violations of due process de novo.” In re Welfare of 

D.E., 196 Wn.2d 92, 102, 469 P.3d 1163 (2020).

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees 

that government will not deprive an individual of “life, liberty, or property, without 

due process of law.” And Article I, section 3 of the Washington Constitution

guarantees that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without 

due process of law.” “[T]he state constitution does not afford greater due 

process protections than the federal constitution.” Prostov v. State, Dep’t of 

Licensing, 186 Wn. App. 795, 810 n.12, 349 P.3d 874 (2015). Procedural due 

process is flexible and its requirements change based on context but at minimum 

it requires notice and an opportunity to be meaningfully heard. In re Det. of 

Stout, 159 Wn.2d 357, 370, 150 P.3d 86 (2007); In re Pers. Restraint of Bush, 

164 Wn.2d 697, 704–05, 193 P.3d 103 (2008). 

M.N. relies on PCLR 7(a)(12)(A) to contend that the court failed to follow 

the mandated procedure by not hearing oral argument and that such a failure 

violated his right to due process. PCLR 7(a)(12)(A) provides that a motion for 

 

2 The State contends that RAP 2.5(a) precludes our review of this appeal 

because M.N. did not object to the lack of oral argument below. But M.N. notes that he 

did not have an opportunity to so object. The State does not cite authority explaining 

how M.N. should have preserved error in this situation. M.N. likewise does not cite 

applicable authority. In any event, we have the discretion to address the merits of this 

case in the interest of fundamental justice. See State v. Card, 48 Wn. App. 781, 784, 

741 P.2d 65 (1987) (“RAP 2.5(a) is phrased to allow the court discretion to refuse to 

hear arguments raised for the first time on appeal—it says the court “may” refuse.

Washington courts have allowed issues to be considered for the first time on appeal 

when fundamental justice so requires.”). To the extent RAP 2.5(a) applies, we exercise 

this discretion. 
No. 83306-5-I/4

4

revision “shall be scheduled for argument . . . no later than 30 days from the 

Commissioner’s written order.” But the State responds that PCLR 7(a)(10)

establishes that hearing oral argument is within the discretion of the superior 

court. PCLR 7(a)(10) provides that the court “may, in its discretion or for good 

cause shown, waive oral argument for civil motions.” M.N. does not explain how 

the court abused its discretion under PCLR 7(a)(10).

The court’s exercise of its discretion to waive oral argument for M.N.’s 

motion does not violate his due process right because that right does not 

guarantee oral argument on motions.3 See Rivers v. Wash. State Conf. of 

Mason Contractors, 145 Wn.2d 674, 697, 41 P.3d 1175 (2002) (“‘oral argument 

[on a motion] is not a due process right’” (alteration in original)) (quoting Hanson 

v. Shim, 87 Wn. App. 538, 551, 943 P.2d 322 (1997)); State v. Bandura, 85 Wn. 

App. 87, 92–93, 931 P.2d 174 (1997) (rejecting appellant’s claim that the “trial 

court violated his right to procedural due process when it denied him an 

opportunity to orally argue his post-trial motion” because procedural due process 

 

3 We recognize the significance of M.N.’s motion for revision, which challenged

the imposition of 180 days of involuntary commitment. See In re Det. of M.S., 18 Wn. 

App. 2d 651, 656, 492 P.3d 882 (2021), review denied, 501 P.3d 134 (Wash. 2022)

(noting that civil commitment is a “‘significant deprivation of liberty’” (quoting Addington 

v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 99 S. Ct. 1804, 60 L. Ed. 2d 323 (1979))). But we also 

recognize the procedural context of the motion: It followed an ITA hearing at which M.N. 

had the right to a jury trial—which he waived—and the right to present evidence in 

accordance with “the constitutional guarantees of due process of law and the rules of 

evidence under RCW 71.05.217.” RCW 71.05.310; see also PCLR 0.4(a)(3), 7(b)(3)

(ITA cases proceed before a commissioner unless a jury trial is requested); 

RCW 71.05.310 (right to jury trial), 71.05.217 (right to present evidence). At the revision

motion stage, the superior court does not review new evidence, it instead reviews de 

novo the commissioner’s decision based on the evidence before the commissioner. See

State v. Ramer, 151 Wn.2d 106, 113, 86 P.3d 132 (2004). 
No. 83306-5-I/5

5

“does not mandate oral argument on a written motion”).4 M.N. had the 

opportunity to be meaningfully heard via his written argument in his motion as 

guaranteed by procedural due process. See Bandura, 85 Wn. App. at 93

(“Rather, oral argument is a matter of discretion, so long as the movant is given 

the opportunity to argue in writing his or her version of the facts and law.”).

5

We affirm. 

WE CONCUR:

 

4 See Chen v. Halamay, No. 76929-4-I, slip op. at 15–16 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 

10, 2020) (Unpublished) (“procedural due process does not mandate oral argument on a 

written motion”) https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/ pdf/769294.pdf, review denied, 196 

Wn.2d 1017, 474 P.3d 1058 (2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2805 (2021); see GR 14.1 

(“Washington appellate courts should not, unless necessary for a reasoned decision, cite 

or discuss unpublished opinions in their opinions.”). 

5 Chen, No. 76929-4-I, slip op. at 16 (noting that the appellant “had ample 

opportunity to advance her arguments in writing”); see GR 14.1.