Failure To Present Proper Statement Of Facts In Appellate Brief Fatal To Appeal
January, 2012
The Illinois Appellate Court, First District reiterates that the rules of appellate procedure governing content and format of appellate briefs are not "mere suggestions" and that failure to comply can be fatal to the unwary litigant's appeal in Walters v. Rodriguez, 2011 IL App (1st) 103488, 2011 WL 5554025 (Ill. App. 1 Dist.).
Facts
In July 2004, plaintiff Steven Walters was driving his minivan across train tracks in Carlinville, Illinois, when it was struck by a train operated by defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific). Walters was rendered paralyzed, two of his passengers sustained serious injuries and two others were killed. The passengers, and representatives of the deceased, sought damages in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois sounding in negligence. Following a jury trial, judgment was entered for defendant on April 2, 2009.
Plaintiffs filed the instant action on May 26, 2009, in the Circuit Court of Cook County against three individual defendants and Union Pacific alleging fraudulent concealment, negligent spoliation of evidence, intentional spoliation of evidence, civil conspiracy, and fraud. During the course of the prior litigation, plaintiffs brought numerous discovery motions before the federal court, including motions to compel discovery and for sanctions. The motions were all related to defendants' alleged spoliation and concealment of evidence and failure to timely produce vital evidence from electronic recorders concerning the operation of the signals at the grade crossing where plaintiffs' vehicle was struck. Plaintiffs' allegations and requests for leave to file claims of negligent and intentional spoliation and fraudulent concealment were rejected. Among the stated reasons for rejecting these claims, the federal court found that plaintiffs failed to: diligently pursue some of this discovery; show that the evidence sought was material; present evidence that defendants intentionally hid evidence; or show defendants intentionally destroyed evidence.
The court granted plaintiffs some relief, directing defendants to produce certain documents and evidence and awarding a monetary sanction for defendants' omission in disclosing certain evidence during discovery. Plaintiffs filed additional motions for additional oral discovery that were rejected and the matter proceeded to trial. Following entry of the April 2009 judgment for defendant, plaintiffs did not move for reconsideration or appeal the district court's rulings, but instead filed the instant complaint in Cook County Circuit Court.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel as well as the statute of limitations. Defendants also argued that the evidence did not support plaintiffs' claims and Illinois does not recognize a separate cause of action for intentional spoliation of evidence. The trial court granted defendants' motion and this appeal followed. On appeal, plaintiffs repeat their arguments before the trial court that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not support summary judgment. Outside of a new introduction and removal of certain arguments not presented on appeal, plaintiffs' appellate brief is repeated verbatim from their memorandum of law in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Analysis
The Illinois Appellate Court, First District's opinion focuses on defendants' argument that plaintiffs' "statement of facts" should be disregarded for their failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 341 governing the content of appellate briefs. Noting that "[a] reviewing court is entitled to have the issues on appeal clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument presented", the Court repeated its oft-cited mantra that "the appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of argument and research." Supreme Court Rules 341(h)(6) and (7) require a statement of the facts, with citation to the record, necessary for an understanding of the case and a clear statement of contentions with supporting citation of authorities and pages of the record relied on. These rules are not merely suggestions, but are necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the courts.
The Court explained that it will not sift through the record or complete legal research to find support for the issues on appeal. The burden of a sufficient record falls on the appellant. Issues that are ill-defined and insufficiently presented do not satisfy the Rule and are considered waived. Indeed, the Court may not only strike portions of the brief or consider arguments waived for such Rule violations, but may strike a brief in its entirety and dismiss the matter. Where the record is not complete, any doubts which might arise from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the appellant. Further, "the reviewing court must presume the circuit court had a sufficient factual basis for its holding and that its order conforms with the law."
The Court agreed with defendants that plaintiffs' recitation of the facts was wholly deficient and should be disregarded. Plaintiffs simply repeated the entirety of their recitation of facts and analysis concerning their arguments on res judicata and collateral estoppel from their memorandum below. Almost all citations to the record in their brief pertained to the federal court record and not the record before the Illinois Appellate Court. While plaintiffs' appellate brief did repeat a footnote from their trial memorandum explaining that the federal exhibits and docket entries could be produced upon request by the court, that is plainly insufficient. It is not for the Appellate Court to request a record and conduct research for the parties, but for the parties to prepare and submit a complete record and provide citation to the record and authority in support of their arguments.
Here, plaintiffs completely failed to comply with Rule 341 by not only citing predominantly to the federal record, but by providing incorrect citations. While plaintiffs provided some citations to the proper state court record in the introduction and conclusion of their facts and in some portions of their analysis, the majority of these citations were to pages of the record unrelated to plaintiffs' statements and contentions. Therefore, plaintiffs' facts are disregarded and the unsupported arguments are considered waived. "Accordingly", the Appellate Court stated, "we have not been presented any reason to overcome the presumptionÉthat the trial court correctly ascertained the facts of the case and followed the law in granting defendants' motion to dismiss and we affirm that ruling."
Learning Point
An appellate brief is not just a trial court motion or memorandum with a new cover and a few other cosmetic changes. The Appellate Court expects and demands proper appellate briefs, including a complete statement of facts with correct record citations and well-developed legal arguments citing proper supporting authority. Litigants and their counsel who (knowingly or unknowingly) cut corners on appeal by recycling trial court pleadings do so at their peril. Retention of experienced appellate counsel is recommended to avoid this trap for the unwary.
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2011v4) 2011 Volume 4 Table of Contents
