9 NICS App. 90, IN THE MATTER OF K.M. (March 2010)
IN THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION
HOOPA, CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of K.M., an Indian Minor.
Hoopa Valley Children & Family Services, Petitioner and Appellee,
v.
M. J., Respondent and Appellant.
No. J-09-004 (March 31, 2010)
SYLLABUS*
Trial court entered order in child protection case. Court of Appeals holds that (1) motion to extend time filed by appellant on the day before her opening brief was due failed to establish good cause for granting an extension; (2) code grants Court of Appeals discretion to refuse to hear oral argument from a party that fails to file a brief; and (3) appellant’s actions operate as a waiver of appellant’s right to present oral argument; and (4) because appellant failed to identify a legal or factual basis in her notice of appeal or in a timely-filed brief and will not be allowed to present oral argument, the Court has no basis for ruling in favor of appellant. Appeal dismissed.
Before: Lisa E. Brodoff, Chief Judge; Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Judge; Suzanne Ojibway Townsend, Judge.
OPINION
Brodoff, C.J.:
This matter comes before the Court of Appeals pursuant to the Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant’s Motion for Interlocutory Appeal filed by appellant on February 12, 2010. Despite its title, appellant’s Motion is not a motion to file an interlocutory appeal, but rather, is a motion for an extension of time to file the brief that this Court, on January 10, 2010, ordered appellant to file no later than February 12, 2010. The Motion to Extend Time is denied and the appeal is hereby dismissed.
9 NICS App. 90, IN THE MATTER OF K.M. (March 2010) p. 91
I. The Motion to Extend is Denied
The Hoopa Valley Tribal Appellate Rules, Title 2, Chapter 6 of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Code, set forth the rules governing motions and extensions of time in the Court of Appeals.
Although the Motion to Extend was not filed until the last minute on the day appellant’s brief was due, the Motion is not time-barred because the rule regarding extensions of time provides that “[f]or good cause, the court may extend the time prescribed by these rules or by its order to perform any act, or may permit an act to be done after that time expires … .” HVTC 2.6.17. However, per the express wording of this rule, the motion must state “good cause” for the Court of Appeals to grant the motion. Furthermore, a motion “must state with particularity the grounds for the motion, the relief sought, and the legal argument necessary to support it.” HVTC 2.6.16(a) (emphasis added). “Any affidavit or other paper necessary to support a motion must be served and filed with the motion.” HVTC 2.6.16(b) (emphasis added). “A motion shall be decided without oral argument unless the court orders otherwise.” HVTC 2.6.16(g). A motion that results in dismissal or otherwise determines the outcome of an appeal cannot be decided by the Chief Judge alone. HVTC 2.6.16(e).
Except for citing the rule permitting motions for extension, appellant provides no legal argument in support of the motion. Nor is the motion accompanied by “any affidavit or other paper” establishing facts to support the motion. In regards to the requirement that the motion “state with particularity the grounds for the motion,” the motion states merely that, three weeks after appellant was mailed this Court’s Scheduling Order, and two weeks after appellant retained a spokesperson to represent her, the spokesperson “requires additional time to review the appeal and all the documents filed since March of 2009.”
Appellant’s Motion is not well taken. Appellant’s Notice of Interloculatory [sic] Appeal filed on November 24, 2009, much of which moot as of the time it was filed and therefore borderline frivolous, asked that “this appeal be heard immediately as an emergency.” Now appellant comes before this Court on the day her brief was due requesting an extension of time with virtually no legal argument or facts in support of the Motion. The “appeal and all the documents filed since March of 2009” are contained in a trial court record of exactly eighty nine pages. Nearly a quarter of those pages are summonses, certifications of service, and other such documents that have no bearing on the substance of the proceedings. Appellant’s delay in securing a spokesperson, and the spokesperson’s subsequent delay in reviewing a record containing less than eighty pages of substantively relevant documents, do not constitute good cause for this Court to grant an extension of the deadline for appellant’s brief. Appellant’s Motion to Extend thus fails to meet the requirements of HVTC 2.6.17 and therefore must be denied.
9 NICS App. 90, IN THE MATTER OF K.M. (March 2010) p. 92
Because “[a]ll briefs must be filed according to the timeline issued by the appellate court in the scheduling order, unless the Appellate Court has granted a party's motion to extend the time to file,” this Court will not accept a brief from appellant.
II. The Appeal is Dismissed
This Court typically goes to great lengths to allow appeals to be heard on the merits. Although not directly binding on the Court of Appeals, we respect and consistently apply Rule 100(c) of the trial court rules set forth in Title 3, which encourages leniency for non-represented parties who fail to strictly comply with court rules and grants the Hoopa Valley Tribal courts the discretion to interpret filings by pro se litigants in a liberal manner so as to achieve, among other things, a just determination of the issues. Indeed, in this very case, the Court of Appeals liberally construed the sweeping statements in the Notice of Interloculatory [sic] Appeal that the trial court order was “in violation of Title 14”, “there are clear errors in both law and fact”, and the court “abused its discretion” as sufficient to meet the requirement of HVTC 2.6.01(e)(1)(D) that the notice of appeal “summarize briefly the alleged mistake of the trial court that is being appealed from.”1 However, rules of court by their nature are designed to promote the fair, efficient, and cost-effective administration of justice, and even in encouraging “leniency” towards unrepresented parties, Title 3, Rule 100(c) also calls upon the Hoopa Valley Tribal Courts to eliminate “unjustifiable expense or delay.” Thus, it is incumbent upon this Court to proceed in a manner that ensures that its orders are taken seriously and does not encourage frivolous appeals, late filings, unsupported motions, and other such actions by parties that waste the time and resources of the Court and the Tribe.
The Hoopa Valley Rules of Appellate Procedure do not directly address how this Court is to proceed when the Court decides that a brief will not be accepted from the appellant. HVTC 2.6.20(a), expresses a strong preference for proceeding with oral argument in all appeals, and provides only three exceptions by which the Court my decline to hear oral argument. However, HVTC 2.6.20(a) presupposes that the parties have filed briefs and that combined operation of the briefs and notice of appeal provides the Court of Appeals with a basis for determining whether (1) the appeal is frivolous, or (2) oral argument would be pointless. Because we have no brief from appellant upon which to make such determinations, we hold that HVTC 2.6.20(a) is not controlling in this case.
HVTC 2.6.11(j) and Title 3, Rule 100(a) provide guidance as to how this matter should be decided. Rule 100(a) states “Where Tribal statutes and these rules do not expressly address a question, the Court may issue any order to accomplish substantial justice.” HVTC 2.6.11(j)
9 NICS App. 90, IN THE MATTER OF K.M. (March 2010) p. 93
states “If an appellant fails to file a brief within the time provided by this rule, or within an extended time, the respondent may move to dismiss the appeal.” HVTC 2.6.11(j) also states “A respondent who fails to file a brief will not be heard at oral argument unless the court grants permission.” A respondent/appellee would be severely prejudiced, and therefore it would not be in the interests of justice, to allow oral argument to be presented by an appellant who has failed in either the notice of appeal or a written brief to provide notice to the respondent/appellee of the specific nature of the errors allegedly committed by the trial court or the legal arguments appellant intends to rely upon. If, as provided by HVTC 2.6.11(j), the Court of Appeals has the discretion to refuse to hear oral argument from a respondent who fails to file a brief, then certainly the Court of Appeals has the discretion to refuse to hear oral argument from an appellant who has failed to file a brief as directed by the Court of Appeals. And if, as provided by HVTC 2.6.11(j), a respondent has the ability to move to dismiss the appeal of an appellant who has failed to file a brief as directed by the Court of Appeals, then certainly the Court of Appeals has the authority to move on its own discretion to dismiss the appeal. We hold that appellant’s actions in this case operate as a waiver of appellant’s right to present oral argument to the Court of Appeals.2
Because appellant has failed to adequately identify a specific legal or factual basis for her appeal in her notice of appeal or in a brief and has forfeited her right to present oral argument, this court has no basis upon which it could rule in appellant’s favor, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed.3
III. Conclusion and Order
Because appellant has failed to file a brief as directed by this Court and has failed to state good cause for an extension of time in which to file a brief, this Court will not accept a brief or hear oral argument from appellant. With no argument to support the appeal, the appeal must be dismissed.
The syllabus is not a part of the Court’s Opinion. The syllabus is a summary of the Opinion prepared by the publishers of this reporter only for the convenience of the reader. Therefore, the syllabus should not be cited in whole or part as legal authority. Only the Opinion, which follows the syllabus, may be cited as legal authority.
Alleging that a mistake was made, which appellant did, and summarizing the alleged mistake, which appellant did not do, are two entirely different things and this Court’s rulings in this proceeding should not be interpreted as setting a precedent that mere allegations of mistake will in the future be accepted as satisfying the requirement that the alleged mistake be summarized with some specificity.
We caution that this holding has limited value as precedent. For example, it is not our intent to preclude future panels of the Court from hearing oral argument if a notice of appeal presents sufficient notice to the appellee of the alleged errors and legal issues to be presented; if a pro se appellant is not able to represent him/herself effectively in writing; or other factors establish that substantial justice would be best served by proceeding with oral argument despite an appellant’s failure to file a brief.
The practical effect of this holding is, of course, that the matter will be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, including further review hearings under Title 14, and that appellant retains her full legal rights as to those proceedings.