State of Hawaii v. Robert Stone ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII, by its Office of No. 20-15828
Consumer Protection,
D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00272-DKW-RT
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT L. STONE II, Esquire, DBA Gah
Law Group, LLC,
Defendant,
v.
CHESTER NOEL ABING; et al.,
Movants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, 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).
Chester Noel Abing, Susan Kay Broer-DeShaw, and Dennis Duane DeShaw
appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their motions to intervene
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 in this action filed by The State of
Hawaii’s Office of Consumer Protection against disbarred attorney defendant
Robert L. Stone II. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the denial of intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) and for an
abuse of discretion the denial of permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b). Perry v. Proposition 8 Off. Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 950, 955 (9th Cir.
2009). We affirm.
The district court properly denied appellants’ motions to intervene as of right
under Rule 24(a) because appellants failed to identify a significant protectable
interest that could be impaired by this action and defendant Stone adequately
represented their interests. See Perry, 587 F.3d at 950 (requirements for a party to
intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)); Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1086
(9th Cir. 2003) (“When an applicant for intervention and an existing party have the
same ultimate objective, a presumption of adequacy of representation arises.”).
For the same reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying appellants’ requests to intervene permissibly under Rule 24(b). See Perry,
587 F.3d at 955 (requirements for a party to intervene permissibly under Rule
24(b)); see id. (in addition to the requirements in Rule 24(b), “the court may also
2 20-15828
consider other factors in the exercise of its discretion, including the nature and
extent of the intervenors’ interest and whether the intervenors’ interests are
adequately represented by other parties” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Appellants’ motion to stay the district court proceedings (Docket Entry No.
32) is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-15828