STEFANINI v. Stephen Carlock, Defendant. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-02No. No. 20-15240

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(6) regarding the required statement of the case and record citations.

Vicki Stefanini appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her employer, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, on claims of gender discrimination, retaliation, and wage violations. However, Stefanini's appellate brief failed to meet the procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(6), which requires appellants to include a concise statement of the case with facts relevant to the issues, procedural history, and rulings under review, along with proper record citations.

Stefanini's opening brief cited only isolated pages from various district court documents rather than constructing a coherent statement of the case with appropriate record references. When the appellee pointed out these deficiencies and the appellant was given an opportunity to correct them in her reply brief, Stefanini instead defended her approach and repeated the same errors by asserting facts without proper record citations.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Compliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(6)
Requirements for appellate briefs regarding statement of the case and record citations
Appellate procedural defects and dismissal

Procedural posture

The appellant appealed a district court's summary judgment decision in the appellee's favor, but the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds before reaching the merits.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-Appellant Vicki Stefanini brings this suit against Defendant-Appellee Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“HPE”), alleging gender discrimination, retaliation, and the failure to pay wages to which she is entitled. She appeals the district courts summary judgment decision in HPEs favor. We dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(6).

Under Rule 28(a)(6), “[t]he appellants brief must contain ․ a concise statement of the case setting out the facts relevant to the issues submitted for review, describing the relevant procedural history, and identifying the rulings presented for review, with appropriate references to the record.” Stefanini “has exhibited complete disregard for [those] requirements,” citing only the first page of the summary judgment decision and the first pages of several district court filings, which are not themselves evidence.

Han v. Stanford Univ., 210 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Mitchel v. Gen. Elec. Co., 689 F.2d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 1982)) (dismissing the appeal because the “appellees’ brief cited Mitchel and requested dismissal of the appeal, yet [the appellant] did not take the opportunity to file a reply brief that could have cured the defects”).

DISMISSED, with the parties to bear their own costs.

FOOTNOTES

. She cites the first page of her amended complaint, HPEs notice of removal, the district court case assignment, the first page of HPEs motion to dismiss, the first page of HPEs answer, the first page of HPEs motion for summary judgment, the judgment, the notice of appeal, the first pages of two of HPEs attorneys’ declarations (which are contentless), and the first page of Stefaninis supervisors declaration (which is contentless other than to state that the supervisor is an HPE sales director).

. In its answering brief, HPE pointed out the defects in Stefaninis counseled opening brief and cited Mitchel for the proposition that the panel has the discretion to dismiss the appeal because of those defects. In her counseled reply brief, Stefanini denied that her opening brief was defective (and so of course did not try to cure the defects) and compounded the problem by again reciting facts purportedly in the record without accompanying appropriate references to the record.