Opinion ID: 1965580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Absence of Oral Argument

Text: With respect to the instant defendants motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs motion to vacate judgment and motion to recuse, plaintiffs argue on appeal that they were denied due process because the motion justice decided those motions without there having been a hearing and oral argument. It is significant, however, that the Ryans were perpitted to submit multiple memoranda and other written submissions to the court, and the absence of an opportunity to supplement written submissions with oral advocacy [does not] constitute a denial of due process. Cruz v. Melecio, 204 F.3d 14, 19 (1st Cir.2000); see also Federal Communications Commission v. WJR, The Goodwill Station, Inc., 337 U.S. 265, 276, 69 S.Ct. 1097, 93 L.Ed. 1353 (1949); United States v. One 1974 Porsche 911-S, 682 F.2d 283, 286 (1st Cir.1982) (There is no constitutional right to oral argument on a summary judgment motion.); Dredge Corp. v. Penny, 338 F.2d 456, 462 n. 14 (9th Cir.1964) (The opportunity to be heard orally on questions of law is not an inherent element of procedural due process, even where substantial questions of law are involved.). The decision as to whether or not to hold a hearing and allow oral argument is within the discretion of the court, and there is no abuse of discretion when the complaining party can point to no single, definable aspect of its position which could not have been adequately presented by a written submission, as is true in the instant case. Domegan v. Fair, 859 F.2d 1059, 1065 (1st Cir.1988) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. DeCologero, 821 F.2d 39, 44 (1st Cir.1987); Cia. Petrolera Caribe, Inc. v. Arco Caribbean, Inc., 754 F.2d 404, 411 (1st Cir.1985). We are convinced that the motion justice did not abuse his discretion when he elected not to hold a hearing with regard to plaintiffs motions.