STEFANINI v. Stephen Carlock, Defendant. (2021)

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 court's summary judgment decision in HPE's 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 appellant's 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.¹ 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”).²

DISMISSED, with the parties to bear their own costs.

FOOTNOTES

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

2.   In its answering brief, HPE pointed out the defects in Stefanini's 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.