Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02451/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02451-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Appellant has two related appeals pending before this 1

Court: No. 2:07-cv-02213-MCE and No. 2:07-cv-02451-MCE. Because

Appellee’s Motions to Strike in both cases are based on nearly

identical claims, this Court will address them both in a single

Memorandum and Order. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE WIRE COMM WIRELESS, INC.,

______________________________

NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES, No. 2:07-cv-2213-MCE

INC., a Delaware corporation,

Appellant,

v.

RICHARD McCORMICK et al.,

Appellees.

______________________________

NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES, No. 2:07-cv-2451-MCE

INC., a Delaware corporation,

Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER1

MICHAEL F. BURKART, as Trustee,

Appellee.

______________________________

Case 2:07-cv-02451-MCE Document 38 Filed 03/28/08 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 The only substantive difference between the two Motions is 2

that in New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. v. McCormick, et

al., Case No. 2:07-cv-2213, Appellee also claims that Appellant’s

brief exceeded by several pages the 30-page limit prescribed by

the Court’s Briefing Schedule. That difference is not material

and does not affect the Court’s analysis as set forth below,

which is identical for both Motions.

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 3

the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

Presently before the Court are two Motions, filed by Michael

F. Burkart (“Appellee”), to Strike the Opening Briefs of New

Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. (“Appellant”) for failure to

follow the rules set forth on Page Two of the Briefing Schedule

in Bankruptcy Appeal issued in these matters. 

2

While Appellant’s Opening Briefs do lack an appendix and

violate various formatting and page length requirements, they

otherwise conform to the Local Rules of Practice for the United

States District Court, Eastern District of California and the

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. For the following

reasons, Appellee’s Motions to Strike Appellant’s Opening Briefs

will be denied.3

BACKGROUND

On October 18, 2007, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc.

appealed the bankruptcy court’s order granting the Trustee’s

Motion for an Order Approving Compromise (No. 2:07-cv-02213-MCE,

“Compromise Appeal”). 

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-02451-MCE Document 38 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 As Appellant correctly points out, “Bankruptcy Appellate 4

Panel Rules 4 and 5” do not exist. Rules of the United States

Bankruptcy Appellate Panels of the Ninth Circuit are numbered

8001(a)-1 to 9001-1. This appears to be an error in the Briefing

Schedule in Bankruptcy Appeal.

 Rule 32(a) sets forth specific formatting requirements for 5

appellate briefs including the color, alignment, and content of

the cover; binding; paper size; line spacing; margin size; font

size (14 point); and font style (plain Roman). Rule 32(a) also

requires that parties include a certificate of compliance stating

either the number of words in the brief, or the number of lines

of monospaced type in the brief.

3

On November 14, 2007, New Cingular appealed the bankruptcy

court’s order denying a stay of a related adversary proceeding

pending appeal of New Cingular’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

(No. 2:07-cv-02451-MCE, “Arbitration Appeal”). This Court has

jurisdiction to hear New Cingular’s appeals under 28 U.S.C.

§ 158(a).

On November 5, 2007 and November 21, 2007, the Clerk of the

Court issued identical Briefing Schedules in Bankruptcy Appeal

for the Compromise Appeal and Arbitration Appeal, respectively. 

The Briefing Schedule details the format requirements of

appellate briefs in bankruptcy matters submitted to a United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

Page Two of the Briefing Schedule states that “[t]he contents of

the brief must comply with Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Rules 4 and

5 ; Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009 and 8010; and 4

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 32(a).”

Appellant’s Opening Briefs, filed on December 7, 2007,

failed to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)5

as well as the guidelines contained in the Briefing Schedule for

submitting excerpts from the record for the Court’s consideration. 

Case 2:07-cv-02451-MCE Document 38 Filed 03/28/08 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

On December 21, 2007, without notifying Appellant of any

shortcomings in its Opening Briefs, Appellee filed separate

Motions to Strike. That same day, Appellee submitted

stipulations and proposed orders extending the time to file

Appellee’s Briefs on Appeal.

On January 9, 2008, Appellant filed appendices to the

pertinent portions of the record it cited, along with Oppositions

to the Motions to Strike and declarations in support of the

Compromise Appeal and Arbitration Appeal. Appellant’s

January 28, 2008 Reply on Appeal of Order Refusing Stay Pending

Arbitration and Reply on Appeal of Order Approving Compromise,

like the Opening Briefs, did not conform to all the guidelines

set forth on page two of the bankruptcy court’s Briefing

Schedule.

STANDARD

Ninth Circuit Rule 28-1 provides that “[b]riefs not

complying with the [Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure] and

[the Ninth Circuit] rules may be stricken by the court.” 9th

Cir. R. 28-1(a).

ANALYSIS

As Appellee charges, Appellant “failed to submit excerpts of

record . . . and . . . submitted a brief that violates the

governing format requirements in multiple ways, including page

limitations, font/type size, etc.” 

Case 2:07-cv-02451-MCE Document 38 Filed 03/28/08 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

(Appellee’s Mot. to Strike 2 (2:07-cv-02213-MCE).) Contrary to

Appellee’s claim that Appellant “failed to provide appropriate

evidentiary citations,” however, Appellant’s opening briefs do

cite extensively to the record. Id. Although Appellant did not

file appendices, Appellant cited directly to the hearing

transcript, complaint, declarations, and other pertinent portions

of the record. Additionally, the appendices the Appellant later

filed included appendix page numbers as well as hearing

transcript page numbers. Appellant’s citation scheme is not

confusing, and the references are not difficult to locate. The

briefs otherwise conform to the Local Rules and the Federal Rules

of Bankruptcy Procedure.

Appellant’s failure to follow the Briefing Schedule

guidelines did not prejudice Appellee. Nowhere in Appellee’s

Motions to Strike Appellant’s Opening Briefs or Appellee’s

Replies does Appellee claim he was prejudiced by Appellant’s

errors. Appellee could not claim prejudice, since Appellant’s

briefs accurately cite directly to the hearing transcript and to

other portions of the record. Appellee’s principal contention is

that Ninth Circuit has granted motions to strike under

circumstances where a party failed to follow the procedures

relating to the form and content of an appellate brief.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-02451-MCE Document 38 Filed 03/28/08 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Prior Ninth Circuit decisions do not, however, support

granting a motion to strike under the circumstances presented by

these cases. In N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,

127 F.3d 1145, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 1999), the Ninth Circuit struck

an opening brief that omitted the appellate standard of review,

failed to cite correctly to the record, and exceeded the word

limit for proportionally spaced briefs. The court noted it was

typically “tolerant of minor breaches of one rule or another,”

but that the deficiencies in that particular brief were “legion.” 

Id. at 1146. Unlike the appellant in N/S Corp., Appellant’s

counsel here did not utterly disregard the Local Rules; instead,

he appears to have simply failed to read the second page of the

Briefing Schedule in its entirety, since his briefs otherwise

complied with the Local Rules and the Bankruptcy Rules. At most,

Appellant in this matter committed one unintentional error, as

opposed to the three the Ninth Circuit identified in N/S Corp.

Additionally, in Han v. Stanford University, 210 F.3d 1038

(9th Cir. 2000), the Ninth Circuit dismissed an appeal in which

the appellant had “‘exhibited complete disregard for the

requirements’ of the appellate rules respecting citations to the

record,” by failing to follow Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

28(a)(7) and Ninth Circuit Rule 28-2.8. Id. at 1040 (quoting

Mitchel v. Gen. Elec. Co., 689 F.2d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 1982)). 

Specifically, the appellant had failed to include a statement of

facts with appropriate references to the record. Id. at 1039

n.3. The appellant had, moreover, “been put on notice that his

brief was noncompliant.” Id. at 1040. Nonetheless, he made no

attempt to correct the deficiencies. Id. 

Case 2:07-cv-02451-MCE Document 38 Filed 03/28/08 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Here, on the other hand, Appellant’s counsel had not been

put on notice of his failure to conform to the guidelines. 

Further, he corrected his errors by filing appendices just 19

days after Appellee filed the instant Motions to Strike.

Appellee could have simply contacted Appellant’s counsel to

inform him that appendices were required and that Appellant

should file them. In the December 11, 2007 email exchange

between counsel for both parties, Appellee did not mention

Appellant’s failure to follow the Briefing Schedule guidelines,

including the filing of appendices. (De Liberty Decl. in Opp’n

to Mot. to Strike Ex. A (2:07-cv-02213-MCE).) Alternatively,

Appellee itself could have served and filed appendices containing

“material required to be included by the appellant but omitted by

appellant.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009.

Significantly, Appellee himself has not strictly complied

with every formatting requirement as set forth in Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 32(a). Appellee’s brief covers are white;

they should be red. Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(2). Appellee also

failed to include certificates of compliance specifying the

number of words or the number of lines of monospaced type in the

briefs. Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(C)(i). Appellee’s own failure

to follow these guidelines to the letter renders his arguments in

favor of granting the Motions to Strike less persuasive.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-02451-MCE Document 38 Filed 03/28/08 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

CONCLUSION

 Appellant availed itself of this forum on appeal and should

have taken greater care to follow this Court’s explicit and

unambiguous instructions. The Court expects all future appellate

briefs to conform to the standards set forth on the second page

of the Briefing Schedule. Nonetheless, in failing to adhere to

the guidelines for appellate briefs, Appellant committed an error

of form, not substance. Appellant corrected it 19 days after

Appellee’s Motion to Strike brought the error to Appellant’s

attention. Appellant properly cited to the record, but did so by

following incorrect guidelines.

For the foregoing reasons, Appellee’s Motion to Strike

Appellant’s Opening Brief is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2008

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-02451-MCE Document 38 Filed 03/28/08 Page 8 of 8