Barbara Jo Thurman-Carr v. Cathy Murillo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARBARA JO THURMAN-CARR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CATHY MURILLO, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
ALAN MALIK, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 23-55010
D.C. No.
2:22-cv-06677-MCS-PVC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: BOGGS,*** RAWLINSON, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
* 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).
*** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
FEB 1 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
The City and County of Santa Barbara, California prosecuted James Carr in
state court for illegally cutting down trees on public property, conducting unlawful
work without a permit, vandalism, and conspiracy. While the county’s criminal
charges were pending, Carr filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. He is now deceased and represented in this litigation
by his widow, Barbara Jo Thurman-Carr. Carr appeals the district court’s grant of
the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to consider a
motion to dismiss that does not comply with local rules. Bias v. Moynihan, 508
F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007). And we review de novo the district court’s
decision to grant that motion. Palm v. L.A. Dep’t of Water & Power, 889 F.3d
1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2018).
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the
defendants’ motion to dismiss, even though the motion did not comply with the
meet-and-confer requirements of the Central District of California’s Local Rule 7-
3. Although the rule requires parties to meet and confer at least seven days before
filing a motion, a district court “may decline to consider a motion unless it meets
the requirements” of the local rules. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-4 (emphasis added). It need
not strike every motion that was not preceded by a meet-and-confer at least seven

-- 2 of 4 --

3
days prior to filing.
Although the defendants filed their motion to dismiss only one day after the
meet-and-confer conference, the district court exercised its discretion to consider
the motion. “Only in rare cases will we question the exercise of discretion in
connection with the application of local rules.” United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d
471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). This is not one of those rare cases. A meet-and-confer
conference does not grant a right to any party, nor does it protect a party from
unfair prejudice. Requiring parties to meet and confer before filing is simply
meant to help parties resolve their dispute without a hearing, which promotes the
efficient administration of justice. But by repeatedly refusing to cooperate with the
defendants’ efforts to meet and confer, Carr’s counsel made it unnecessarily
difficult for the parties to reach a resolution. So, the district court was well within
its discretion when it chose, based on Local Rule 7-3’s underlying goals, to
consider the motion.
2. A litigant “cannot treat the district court as a mere ill-placed bunker to
be circumvented on his way to this court where he will actually engage his
opponents.” Handa v. Clark, 401 F.3d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, if
a party fails to object to an issue before judgment, he forfeits the right to challenge
the issue on appeal. Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1140 (9th Cir. 2002).
Because Carr’s objection to the motion to dismiss was made only on the grounds

-- 3 of 4 --

4
that the motion did not comply with local rules, he forfeited his opportunity on
appeal to contest the substance of the motion.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --