Court Opinion

ID: 9953685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 17:00:42.312026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:54:44.267055
License: Public Domain

FOR PUBLICATION

     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
          FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LARRY GRANT, on his own behalf            No. 22-56121
and on behalf of his minor child, P.C.,
Individuals,                                 D.C. No.
                                          2:21-cv-06666-
               Plaintiff-Appellant,          JVS-JEM
    and

P. C., Individual Guardian Ad Litem         OPINION
Larry Grant,

               Plaintiff,
     v.

CITY OF LONG BEACH; LONG
BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT;
RODRIGUEZ,

               Defendants-Appellees,
    and

DOES, 1 through 15 Inclusive,

               Defendant.

LARRY GRANT, on his own behalf            No. 22-56143
and on behalf of his minor child, P.C.,

-
2                 GRANT V. CITY OF LONG BEACH

Individuals,                                        D.C. No.
                                                 2:21-cv-06666-
                 Plaintiff,                         JVS-JEM
    and

P. C., Individual Guardian Ad Litem
Larry Grant,

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.

CITY OF LONG BEACH; LONG
BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT;
RODRIGUEZ,

                 Defendants-Appellees.

          Appeal from the United States District Court
             for the Central District of California
           James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

             Argued and Submitted March 7, 2024
                    Pasadena, California

                      Filed March 22, 2024

    Before: Holly A. Thomas and Roopali H. Desai, Circuit
       Judges, and Rosemary Márquez, * District Judge.

                    Opinion by Judge Desai

*
 The Honorable Rosemary Márquez, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
                   GRANT V. CITY OF LONG BEACH                      3

                          SUMMARY **

          Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28

    The panel struck appellants’ opening brief in its entirety
pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 28-1 because it materially
failed to comply with Circuit rules and dismissed the appeal.
    The panel noted that appellants filed an opening brief
replete with misrepresentations and fabricated case law. The
brief included only a handful of accurate citations, almost all
of which were of little use to this Court because they were
not accompanied by coherent explanations of how they
supported appellants’ claims. No reply brief was filed. The
deficiencies violated Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
28(a)(8)(A). The panel was, therefore, compelled to strike
appellants’ brief and dismiss the appeal.

                           COUNSEL

Angela R. Swan (argued), Law Office of Angela R. Swan,
Torrance, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Matthew M. Peters (argued), Long Beach City Attorney’s
Office, Long Beach, California, for Defendants-Appellees.

**
  This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
4               GRANT V. CITY OF LONG BEACH

                        OPINION

DESAI, Circuit Judge:

    Appellants Larry Grant and his daughter P.C. appeal the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
Appellees, City of Long Beach and Gabriela Rodriguez.
Appellants allege that their constitutional rights to
association and due process were violated. They also allege
several state-law claims. Appellants filed an opening brief
but did not file a reply brief. Because we find that
Appellants’ opening brief represents a material failure to
comply with our rules, we strike the brief in its entirety
pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 28–1 and dismiss this appeal.
                      DISCUSSION
    “Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 and our
corresponding Circuit Rules 28–1 to –4 clearly outline the
mandatory components of a brief on appeal. These rules
exist for good reason.” Sekiya v. Gates, 508 F.3d 1198, 1200
(9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). To fairly consider cases on
appeal, we require parties to present reliable and
understandable support for their claims. See id. We have
discretion to dismiss appeals because of deficiencies in the
briefs. See N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 127 F.3d 1145,
1146 (9th Cir. 1997).
    Here, Appellants filed an opening brief replete with
misrepresentations and fabricated case law. For example, the
brief states that Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937 (9th Cir.
2012), “examined a claim of false imprisonment brought by
a parent whose child was unlawfully removed from the home
by government officials.” Hydrick, however, discusses no
such claim. The case instead concerns a conditions of
                 GRANT V. CITY OF LONG BEACH                5

confinement claim brought by a class of persons civilly
committed under California’s Sexually Violent Predator
Act. Id. The words “parent” and “child” appear nowhere in
the opinion. Similarly, Appellants’ brief states that Wall v.
County of Orange, 364 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2004),
“addressed intentional infliction of emotional distress claims
against police officers who unlawfully removed a child from
her parent.” Wall instead concerns allegations of excessive
force, false arrest, and false imprisonment brought by a
dentist who was arrested after an altercation at an auto shop.
Id at 1110–12. The words “parent” and “child” are, once
again, absent from the opinion. Beyond Hydrick and Wall,
Appellants also misrepresent the facts and holdings of
numerous other cases cited in the brief. See, e.g., Smith v.
City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004); Yvonne L. v.
N.M. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 959 F.2d 883 (10th Cir. 1992);
Smith v. City of Fontana, 818 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1987);
Wilkins v. City of Oakland, 350 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2003);
Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 1997); Mattos v.
Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011); Henderson v. City of
Simi Valley, 305 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson v. City
of Seattle, 474 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2007); Brooks v. City of
Seattle, 599 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2010); Devereaux v. Perez,
218 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2000); Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d
1126 (9th Cir. 2000).
    Unfortunately, Appellants not only materially
misrepresent the facts and holdings of the cases they cite in
the brief, but they also cite two cases that do not appear to
exist. See Smith v. City of Oakland, 731 F.3d 1222, 1231
(11th Cir. 2013); Jones v. Williams, 791 F.2d 1024 (9th Cir.
1986). In light of the magnitude of Appellants’ citations to
apparently fabricated cases, we issued a focus order before
argument directing counsel to be prepared to discuss these
6              GRANT V. CITY OF LONG BEACH

cases. Counsel was also directly asked about these cases
during oral argument. Counsel, however, did not
acknowledge the fabrications. Nor did counsel provide any
other meaningful support for Appellants’ claims.
Specifically, Appellants’ counsel engaged in the following
colloquy with the Court:

       THE COURT: . . . There were two cases
                  cited in the brief that don’t
                  seem to exist at all: Smith v.
                  Oakland, Jones v. Williams.
                  So . . . maybe address those
                  two cases that we could not
                  locate, [and] with respect to
                  the rest of your case, I’m
                  just wondering what the
                  strongest cases are that you
                  have on authority, because
                  the ones you cited . . . the
                  facts just don’t line up with
                  what you cited them for.
       COUNSEL:        The two cases that the court
                       had indicated prior to the
                       case today, one of them I
                       will indicate that it was cited
                       incorrectly, um the second
                       case . . .
       THE COURT: Okay, well which one was
                  that . . . that was cited
                  incorrectly?
       COUNSEL:        That was Williams v. Jones
                 GRANT V. CITY OF LONG BEACH                 7

       THE COURT: And what’s the correct
                  citation you want us to look
                  at?
       COUNSEL:          The case just did not apply,
                         so I would have to just not
                         rely on that case, the other
                         case was the United States
                         v. William, . . . that case
                         would      have     to     be
                         distinguished from our case
                         in that our case, our client
                         was     not    freely    and
                         voluntarily giving the police
                         officers permission to come
                         into the home . . .

    Appellants’ brief includes only a handful of accurate
citations, almost all of which were of little use to this Court
because they were not accompanied by coherent
explanations of how they supported Appellants’ claims. No
reply brief was filed. These deficiencies violate Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A). “When writing a brief,
counsel must provide an argument which must contain
‘appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with
citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which
the appellant relies.’” Sekiya, 508 F.3d at 1200 (citing Fed.
R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A)). We are therefore compelled to
strike Appellants’ brief and dismiss the appeal. See In re
O’Brien, 312 F.3d 1135, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002).
   DISMISSED.