Opinion ID: 6335095
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: HALO’s Briefing Deficiencies

Text: In three points relied on, HALO raises seven distinct arguments. Each of HALO’s points relied on and corresponding arguments violate the straightforward and mandatory requirements in Rule 84.04 governing appellate briefing. Fowler v. Mo. Sheriffs’ Ret. Sys., 623 S.W.3d 578, 582-83 (Mo. banc 2021). Specifically, all three of HALO’s points relied on are multifarious, in that they contain multiple, divisible claims. Id. “Multifarious points relied on are noncompliant with Rule 84.04(d) and preserve nothing for review.” Macke v. Patton, 591 S.W.3d 865, 869 (Mo. banc 2019); see also Rule 84.13 (instructing “allegations of error not briefed or not properly briefed shall not be considered in any civil appeal”). While this Court possesses the discretion to review non-compliant briefing, it must “cautiously exercise this discretion” else it “send[s] an implicit message that substandard briefing is acceptable.” Scott v. King, 510 S.W.3d 887, 892 (Mo. App. 2017). 19 HALO’s briefing is rife with deficiencies, and these deficiencies are more than superficial. 16 Though this Court has discretion to review noncompliant briefing, it will exercise this discretion to review only one of HALO’s claims. The court of appeals noted HALO’s inadequate briefing before that court and sharply rebuked HALO for the deficiencies. The court of appeals nonetheless exercised its discretion to review all of HALO’s relevant claims to the extent the arguments could be deciphered. HALO then submitted to this Court an appellate brief that replicated many, if not all, of those same flagrant flaws. There 16 Aside from being multifarious, HALO’s first point relied on, for example, references a claim of instructional error for future damages that HALO does not later pursue or otherwise explain in the corresponding argument section: Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy. The trial court erred in denying HALO’s motion for a directed verdict on the claim for tortious interference with business expectancy, in submitting to the jury the question of future damages on that claim, and in denying HALO’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the tortious-interference claim, because All Star failed to submit any legally sufficient evidence of damages, in that the only legally sufficient evidence of damages was the $25,541.88 in lost profits from a handful of one-time diverted orders, which All Star expressly conceded and the trial court held was not the basis for the jury’s $500,000 award for tortious interference, leaving that award unsubstantiated by any competent evidence. (Emphasis added.). HALO’s second point relied on contains two separate claims of error and is also multifarious: Unreliable Evidence of Lost-Profit Damages. The trial court erred in permitting All Star to introduce Exhibit 235 as evidence of All Star’s lost profits and refusing to strike Mrs. Vogt’s testimony regarding Exhibit 235 and lost profits, because that evidence and testimony was not admissible evidence of lost profits, in that Exhibit 235 was a made-for-litigation document containing a lay witness’s calculations prepared through an unreliable methodology, and Mrs. Vogt’s testimony was not based on actual facts or data that supported a rational estimate of lost profits. 20 was nothing inadequate about the court of appeals’ process of review, and this Court will not once again extend HALO the benefit of ex gratia review. The court of appeals, however, did not reach the due process claim raised in HALO’s third point relied on, contending the reduced punitive damage award violated due process. This point relied on also violates Rule 84.04 as it is clearly multifarious and contains multiple, divisible claims. 17 Nevertheless, because HALO has not had the benefit of appellate review of this due process claim, this Court will exercise its discretion to do so.