Opinion ID: 1577158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: on motion to strike appellee's brief

Text: Before we reach the merits of the appeal, we will consider a motion by Gerald, the appellant, that we should strike the brief submitted by Trudie, the appellee, because she failed to comply with Rule 28(a)(3), NDRAppP. Rule 28(a)(3) provides that, in the appellant's brief, the statement of the facts relevant to the issues presented for review shall have appropriate references to the record. Rule 28(b) requires the same of the appellee when a statement of the facts is included in the brief. Rule 13, NDRAppP, provides that [t]he supreme court may take any appropriate action against any person failing to perform an act required by the rules or required by court order. As we said in Jostad v. Jostad, 285 N.W.2d 583, 585 (N.D. 1979): Many times we have reiterated our preference to reach the merits of cases. See State v. Packineau, 270 N.W.2d 336 (N.D.1978), and Willow City Farmers Elevator v. Thompson, 261 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1977), and cases cited therein. The factors which enter into our evaluation are expressed in those cases. We add the factor from the Procedure Committee comment to Rule 13 that we apply sanctions sparingly, when it is necessary to protect the appellate process from abuse. We do not think that Trudie's disregard of Rule 28(b) warrants striking her brief. The facts in her brief were supported by the record. We will restate our position, however, that the rules must be treated respectfully, and that we do not intend that our admonitions be treated as `empty noise.' Jostad, supra, 285 N.W.2d at 585.