Court Opinion

ID: 9965493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 17:00:59.552276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:08.238961
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                               MAY 2 2024
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NICHOLE L. KONOLOFF; JASON                       No.    22-35759
EAVES,
                                                 D.C. No. 3:20-cv-01622-AR
              Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, a Liberty Mutual Company; et
al.,

              Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Oregon
               Marco A. Hernandez, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 2, 2024 **

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, AND N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

      Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to

Defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review de novo a

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
district court’s grant of summary judgment, considering the record in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party.” G & G Closed Cir. Events v. Liu, 45 F.4th

1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 2022). We affirm.

      1.     In their opening brief and in two motions to supplement the record

(Dkts. 10, 22), Plaintiffs attached additional documents that were not presented to

the district court. We will not consider any documents on appeal that were not

presented to the district court and hereby deny the motions. See Kirshner v. Uniden

Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Papers not filed with the

district court or admitted into evidence by that court are not part of the clerk’s

record and cannot be part of the record on appeal.”).

      2.     Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment,

because their counsel before the district court was ineffective. However, absent due

process concerns, which are not present here, ineffective assistance of counsel is

not a basis to reverse a district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Nicholson

v. Rushen, 767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“Generally, a

plaintiff in a civil case has no right to effective assistance of counsel.”).

                                            2
      3.     The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on

Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants.1 Plaintiffs failed to present evidence showing

triable issues of material fact precluding summary judgment against Defendants.

Notably, Plaintiffs failed to establish any damages arising from the alleged motor

vehicle accident. Additionally, Plaintiffs failed to establish that Subaru materially

misrepresented, concealed, or failed to disclose any material information about an

alleged sudden acceleration defect.2

       AFFIRMED.

      1
        Because Plaintiffs’ claims fail on the merits, we do not address Defendants’
contentions that Plaintiffs’ opening brief should be struck.
      2
      Plaintiffs similarly fail to set forth facts to support an award of punitive
damages or injunctive relief.
                                           3