Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Sekiya v. Gates
508 F.3d 1198
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2007-11-29
- Topic
- bankruptcy
How later courts describe this case
- concluding that “lists of facts unaccompanied by analysis and completely devoid of caselaw fall far short of” Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A)’s requirement that appellants present their “contentions and the reasons for them” in opening briefs
- dismissing appeal where appellant failed to accurately cite to the record, or provide the appropriate standard of review
- rejecting objections that contained “[b]are 5 assertions and lists of facts unaccompanied by analysis and completely devoid of 6 caselaw”
- rejecting arguments that contained “[b]are assertions and lists of facts unaccompanied by analysis and completely devoid of caselaw”
- rejecting arguments containing “[b]are assertions and lists of facts 26 unaccompanied by analysis” and “completely devoid of caselaw”
- dismissing appeal where appellant failed to 10 accurately cite to the record, or provide the appropriate standard of review
- dismissing appeal where brief failed to provide applicable standard of review, made virtually no legal argument, and lacked table of contents, table of authorities, citations to authority, and accurate citations to the record
- "Bare assertions and lists of facts unaccompanied by analysis and completely devoid of caselaw fall far short of the requirement that counsel present 'appellant's contentions and the reasons for them.' "
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Sekiya v. Gates. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 70 opinions
SEKIYA v. GATES,508 F.3d 1198(9th Cir. 2007)
Linda D. SEKIYA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert M. GATES,fn*officially
as Secretary of Defense, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-15887.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 7, 2007.fn**
Filed November 29, 2007.
Page 1199
Thomas A. Helper, Assistant United States Attorney, Honolulu, Hawaii, for the defendant-appellee.
Before: DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure28and our corresponding Circuit Rules 28-1 to -4 clearly outline the mandatory components of a brief on appeal. These rules exist for good reason. "In order to give fair consideration to those who call upon us for justice, we must insist that parties not clog the system by presenting us with a slubby mass of words rather than a true brief."N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,127 F.3d 1145,1146(9th Cir. 1997).
Here, Sekiya's opening brief is so deficient that we are compelled to strike it in its entirety and dismiss the appeal.Cmty. Commerce Bank v. O'Brien (In re O'Brien),312 F.3d 1135,1137(9th Cir. 2002). The brief fails to provide the applicable standard of review, Fed.R.App.P.28(a)(9)(B), and makes virtually no legal arguments, Fed.R.App.P.28(a)(9)(A). Furthermore, it lacks a table of contents, Fed.R.App.P.28(a)(2), a table of authorities, Fed.R.App.P.28(a)(3), citations to authority, Fed.R.App.P.28(a)(9)(A), and accurate citations to the record, Fed.R.App.P.28(a)(9)(A) (e).
When writing a brief, counselmustprovide an argument whichmustcontain "appellant's contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies." Fed.R.App.P.28(a)(9)(A). In her brief, Sekiya challenges the district court's conclusion on summary judgment that she failed to present evidence thatwould supporta finding of discrimination orestablishthat she was constructively discharged. She does so by asserting that "Plaintiff-Appellant disagrees" and by providing this court with a list of asserted facts without adequate citation to the record and without any argument or authority on how these facts, contrary to the district court's conclusion,would supportorestablishthe finding that Sekiya seeks. Bare assertions and lists of facts unaccompanied by analysis and completely devoid of caselaw fall far short of the requirement that counsel present "appellant's contentions and the reasons for them."
We are mindful of the harshness of this rule, especially as its application could, if unwisely applied, leave a meritorious appellant without a legal remedy when the fault lies solely with his or her counsel.See N/S Corp.,127 F.3d at 1146. With this concern in mind, and despite the abject deficiency of the brief, we have reviewed Sekiya's case on the merits based on a review of the district court record, and we are satisfied that the district court did not err. Sekiya, however, is not "entitled to have us expatiate on our reasons for finding [her] case unmeritorious."Id.at 1147. We conclude that Sekiya did not suffer an adverse employment action when her supervisor requested further substantiation of her absences.See 42U.S.C. § 12112;Nunes v. Wal-MartStores, Inc.,164 F.3d 1243,1246(9th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, the sarcastic comments made by her supervisor about her foot, though insensitive, do not rise to the level of a constructive discharge under our caselaw.See Brooks v. Cityof San Mateo,229 F.3d 917,930(9th Cir. 2000) (constructive discharge occurs when conditions are "so intolerable that a reasonable person would leave the job").
APPEAL DISMISSED.Page 1201