Appeal dismissed based on the "Slubby Mass Rule."

In a recently decided case, the Ninth Circuit dismissed an appeal based upon what has come to be known out on the left side of the country as the "Slubby Mass Rule"

In case you slept through that Appellate Advocacy class in law school, this "rule" provides that any pleading presented to an appellate court that constitutes "a slubby mass of words rather than a true brief" will be rejected.

The term originated in N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 127 F.3d 1145, 1146 (9th Cir. 1997) where the Ninth Circuit declared that "[i]n order to give fair consideration to those who call upon us for justice, we must insist that parties not clog the system by presenting us with a slubby mass of words rather than a true brief." N/S Corp., 127 F.3d at 1146 ("the violations are legion); see also id. ("Enough is enough"). The rule was reiterated five years later in In re O'Brien, 312 F.3d 1135, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2002) (declaring brief "inadequate" and partly "unintelligible"). These cases represent apparently less than successful attempts by the Ninth Circuit to communicate the message to appellate lawyers that filing a crappy brief serves neither their client's interest nor that of the administration of justice. I can only add an "Amen!" to that.

The appellant's brief in question was filed in Sekiya v. Gates, a disability-discrimination case originating in Hawaii. That also seems to have been the limit of what the court could glean about the case from Sekiya's brief, since it:

• Made "virtually no legal arguments" (not a good way to start);


• Did not state the applicable standard of review;


• Failed to include a table of contents;


• Failed to include a table of authorities -- unsurprising since it also


• Did not cite any authority;


• Omitted accurate citations to the record; and


• Didn't explain why Sekiya thought she should prevail except to say she "disagreed" with the trial court.

Now that we've got that straight, the only remaining question is "What the hell does "slubby" mean?"

Hat tip to the California Blog of Appeal.