Alaska Employment Law

 Court calls brief “a slubby mass of words” 

In an employment discrimination case where the employee-appellant, represented by counsel, filed a defective brief, the Court today struck the brief and dismissed the appeal.  The panel stated: 

We publish this opinion as a reminder that material breaches of our rules undermine the administration of justice and cannot be tolerated.

Discussion

[1] Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 and 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).

[2] Here, Sekiya’s opening brief is so deficient that we are compelled to strike it in its entirety and dismiss the appeal. . . .  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).

[3] When writing a brief, counsel must provide an argument which must contain “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).

Sekiya v. Gates, No. 06-15887 (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 2007).

Judge Fernandez wrote the cited opinion with the phrase “slubby mass of words.”  “Slubby” finds no definition in an on-line compilation of dictionaries - maybe a contraction of sloppy and stubby?

Update: The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines “slub” as “a lump or thick place in yarn or thread.”  There’s no etymology.