Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The full case caption appears at the end of this opinion. GRABER, Circuit Judge: In 1980, defendant Stanford University hired plaintiff Han Giok Han as a cook in a Food Service Worker (FSW) Level I position. In 1981, Plaintiff was promoted to FSW II and, by 1983, he held a position as an FSW IV. In 1990, Plaintiff applied unsuccessfully for a vacant FSW V position. After pursuing appropriate administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed an action alleging age and race discrimination, which he later dismissed. In 1992, Plaintiff again applied unsuccessfully for an FSW V position. After filing a grievance with his union and a charge with the EEOC, Plaintiff brought the present action against Stanford University, its dining services, and five individuals, in state court. Plaintiff alleged various claims for breach of contract, tort claims, and a claim of discrimination based on age, race, color, and national origin. The discrimination claim was grounded only on California’ s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Defendants removed the case to federal court on the ground that the Labor Management Relations Act preempted Plaintiff’ s contract claims. Thereafter the district court granted summary judgment to Defendants. Plaintiff brought a timely appeal, arguing only that the district court erred in dismissing his FEHA claim against Stanford University. Defendant argues that we should dismiss the appeal because of Plaintiff’ s failure to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(7) [FOOTNOTE 3] and Ninth Circuit Rule 28-2.8. [FOOTNOTE 4] We agree. This case bears a striking resemblance to Mitchel v. General Electric Co., 689 F.2d 877 (9th Cir. 1982). There, an employer obtained summary judgment in a Title VII case on the ground that the employee, Mitchel, had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See id. at 878. On appeal, Mitchel filed a brief that “contain[ed] allegation after allegation, all of which [were] unsubstantiated” by appropriate references to the record. Id. This court dismissed Mitchel’ s appeal for failure to comply with appellate rules that require a brief to cite those portions of the record that support his factual allegations:
The basis of Mitchel’ s appeal is that he raised genuine issues of fact in the district court as to [his employer' s] discrimination, yet he fails to reveal at what points in the record those alleged facts appear. Mitchel’ s failure to refer to the record works a hardship not only on this court, but also on the opposing litigants. We should not expect a party to expend large amounts of time and money sifting through the trial record in search of support for an opposing party’ s allegations.

Id. at 879. In that case, in his “fourteen-page brief, Mitchelrefer[red] to the record below a single time.” Id. at 878. Here, in his fifteen-page brief, Plaintiff makes no reference whatsoever to the record below. There, rather than making specific references to the record, Mitchel simply told the court “that ‘ [t]he depositions of [all witnesses deposed] . . . are filled with instances in which Mr. Mitchel was treated differently than non-minorities.’ “Id. Here, Plaintiff similarly makes general factual assertions without citing the record for support. For example, he argues: “Several deponents in this case, including a named defendant, have testified that although they worked for Stanford for more than a decade, they could recall no instance in which a person over 45 or 50 years of age was promoted.” Plaintiff also provides no citation to the record to support his claim that “documentary evidence shows that Stanford maintains an elaborate system of racial statistics, with various races assigned specific numbers.” In Mitchel, the court informed counsel of the requirements of the appellate rules and gave him an opportunity to cure the defects, but he did not. See id. at 879. Here, the appellees’ brief cited Mitchel and requested dismissal of the appeal, yet Plaintiff did not take the opportunity to file a reply brief that could have cured the defects. Cf. N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 127 F.3d 1145, 1146 (9th Cir. 1997) (dismissing an appeal where the defendant pointed out substantial defects in the plaintiff’ s opening brief and the plaintiff did not address those defects in response, instead filing a reply brief containing additional defects). We dismiss the appeal because Plaintiff “has exhibited complete disregard for the requirements” of the appellate rules respecting citations to the record. Mitchel, 689 F.2d at 879; see also Stevens v. Security Pac. Nat’ l Bank, 538 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir. 1976) (“Moreover, the appellant has filed briefs in this court which fail to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(1), (2), & (3).[[FOOTNOTE 5]] This ground alone would justify dismissal of the appeal.” ). We reiterate our expectation that counsel make a good-faith attempt to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. Plaintiff’ s counsel failed to follow those rules and, although he was put on notice that his brief was noncompliant, he made no attempt to correct the glaring deficiencies in the brief. APPEAL DISMISSED. :::FOOTNOTES::: FN1 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). FN2 The Honorable Alicemarie H. Stotler, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. FN3 Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(7) provides that the appellant’ s brief must contain “a statement of facts relevant to the issues submitted for review with appropriate references to the record.” FN4 Ninth Cir. R. 28-2.8 provides that “[e]very assertion in briefs regarding matters in the record shall be supported by a reference to the location, if any, in the excerpts of record where the matter is to be found.” FN5 Former Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(3) is now found at Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(7).

Han v. Stanford University HAN GIOK HAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STANFORD UNIVERSITY; STANFORD UNIVERSITY DINING SERVICES, a California business organization; MELANIE JONES-CARTER; ANDRE MALLIE; SUSAN PELETTA; MICHAEL LAUX; ROWEEN NACIONALIS, in their individual capacities, and as agents/employees of Stanford University, Defendants-Appellees. No. 99-15218 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit D.C. No. CV-96-20860-WAI Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William A. Ingram, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 12, 2000 [FOOTNOTE 1] San Francisco, California Before: A. Wallace Tashima, and Susan P. Graber, Circuit Judges, and Alicemarie H. Stotler, [FOOTNOTE 2] District Judge. COUNSEL Rene C. Fernando, San Jose, California, for the plaintiff-appellant. Diane R. Crowley, Gordon & Rees, San Francisco, California, for the defendants-appellees. Filed May 1, 2000
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

Premium Subscription

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now

Team Accounts

Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now

Bundle Subscriptions

Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now

BenefitsPRO Broker Expo 2021

May 18, 2021 - August 18, 2021
Virtual / San Diego, CA

The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.


African Legal Awards 2021

September 03, 2021

The African Legal Awards are set out to recognise exceptional achievement from Africa s legal elite.


General Counsel Summit (GCS) 2021

September 07, 2021 - September 08, 2021

General Counsel Summit is the premier event for in-house counsel, hosting esteemed legal minds from all sectors of the economy.


Litigation Attorney Atlanta, Georgia

Atlanta, Georgia, United States

0-5 year associate attorney needed for a civil litigation firm in the Buckheadarea. Great opportunity for advancement. Salary will be commen...

Apply Now ›

Long Term In-house Corporate Securities Position – Atlanta or Remote

Atlanta, Georgia, United States

Legalpeople is currently working with an in-house client located in the Buckhead area of Atlanta on their need for a full-time temporary lon...

Apply Now ›

Attorney- Simsbury, Connecticut

Simsbury, Connecticut, United States

Farber, Brocks & Zane, LLP is seeking an attorney for our Simsbury, CT office to join our growing and active insurance coverage practice gro...

Apply Now ›


Connecticut Law Tribune

View Announcement ›



VAN DER VEEN, O NEILL, HARTSHORN, AND LEVIN is pleased to welcome Frank Breitman, Esq. a talented and respected litigator to our ranks of trial lawyers.

View Announcement ›



HARWOOD LLOYD, LLC Welcomes Beth L. Barnhard, Esq. Beth has joined the firm as Counsel in the Wills, Trusts and Estates Department. She is Certified to be an Elder Law Attorney (CELA) by the ABAaccredited National Elder Law Foundation.

View Announcement ›