Jay John v. Quality Loan Service Corp.
20-35843
| 9th Cir. | Sep 3, 2021Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Jay John appealed the district court’s partial denial of his attorney Scott Stafne’s motion to withdraw or, alternatively, to delay briefing because of Stafne’s asserted COVID-19-related inability to practice.
- District court ruled on Stafne’s motion without waiting for defendants’ response and later ruled on defendants’ motion to dismiss; John was given an opportunity (and an extension) to respond but did not do so.
- Stafne relied on his personal circumstances and Washington State COVID stay-at-home orders as grounds to withdraw or delay; John argued the court should have accommodated those concerns.
- The district court found no good cause to permit withdrawal or an indefinite delay, concluded there was no conflict with State public-health orders (which exempted essential/professional services), and proceeded with the case.
- John argued the court violated party-presentation principles, denied his right to counsel in civil cases, and deprived him of due process by resolving the dismissal motion without adequate opportunity to oppose.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed: the district court did not err in any of the challenged respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court violated the party-presentation principle by deciding issues not presented | Court overreached by ruling without full adversarial briefing | Court only decided issues Stafne raised and acted as neutral arbiter | No violation; court confined itself to parties’ presented issues and could rule without a response |
| Whether the court failed to consider Stafne’s personal COVID-related circumstances and State orders | Court ignored attorney’s personal situation and public-health orders | Court considered contentions; not required to recite findings on the record | No error; record permits assumption court considered them and Rule 52(a)(3) doesn’t require findings |
| Whether the district court’s order conflicted with State COVID restrictions or lacked constitutional authority | Court forced counsel to work in contravention of State stay-at-home orders | State orders exempted essential/professional services, including legal services | No conflict; State proclamation included exceptions for professional/legal services |
| Whether John was denied counsel or due process when court ruled on motion to dismiss | Ruling without permitting opposition deprived John of counsel/due process | No general right to counsel in civil cases; John was given opportunity (and extension) to respond but did not | No denial: no civil right to appointed counsel here; John had opportunity to respond but failed to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020) (principle of party presentation)
- Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (courts as neutral arbiters of party-framed issues)
- LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 1998) (abuse-of-discretion review)
- Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011) (no general right to counsel in civil cases)
- Agyeman v. Correctional Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2004) (appointment of counsel only in exceptional circumstances)
- Ivey v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982) (courts need not state reasons for rejecting every argument)