Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

A Reminder About the Importance of the Appellate Appendix

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Mar 16, 2018 in Appellate Division, Practice Pointers, Standards of review | 0 comments

White Glove Hospitality, LLC v. Stockton University, 2018 WL 1352589 (App. Div. March 16, 2018).  Many seminars and articles about appellate practice focus on tips for writing better briefs or making more compelling oral arguments.  Preparing a proper appendix, a facially less interesting subject, rarely gets addressed in any detail.  Perhaps as a result of that, the Appellate Division periodically has to issue an opinion in which a party’s failure to submit an appendix that complies with Rule 2:6-1 adversely affects its appeal.  This per curiam, not precedential opinion, issued today by Judges Messano and Accurso, is such a ruling.

Plaintiff brought suit against Stockton University, which had solicited bids for hotel accommodations for its students,  and D&M Galloway Holdings, LLC (“D&M”), which won the bidding and obtained a contract that ended in May 2016.  Defendants then allegedly extended that contract without competitive bidding.  Plaintiff, which wanted the new contract for itself, contended that defendants unlawfully colluded to undermine the bidding process.  D&M threatened frivolous litigation sanctions if plaintiff did not withdraw its complaint.  Plaintiff persisted, and both defendants successfully moved to dismiss the complaint.

D&M then moved for sanctions, which the Chancery Division denied.  D&M appealed, but the Appellate Division dismissed the appeal.

The basis for the panel’s decision was D&M’s failure to provide an adequate appendix.  Missing from the record offered to the Appellate Division were D&M’s contract with the University that ended in May 2016, and the subsequent agreement that was not competitively bid.  The panel was puzzled by the omission of those documents, which “form the basis of the underlying dispute and are at the heart of whether plaintiff’s complaint was frivolous.”  But that was not all.  D&M also failed to provide the Chancery Division’s reason for granting defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint.  All that was offered was that court’s reasons for denying D&M’s sanctions motion.

The panel observed that decisions on motions for sanctions based on the alleged frivolity of litigation are reviewed for abuse of  discretion.  Though the Appellate Division made some remarks that were critical of plaintiff, ultimately the panel stated that “D&M’s decision to exclude from the record on appeal the points the parties argued on the motion to dismiss and the judge’s reasons for ultimately granting it have deprived us of any ability to determine whether the judge abused his discretion in denying its motion for sanctions.”  Since meaningful review was thereby precluded, the panel was compelled to dismiss the appeal.  The judges cited Noren v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., 448 N.J. Super. 486 (App. Div. 2017), discussed here, where the Appellate Division had dismissed a cross-appeal based on a comparable failure of the cross-appellant to provide an adequate record.

Appendices matter.  Counsel should pay close attention to them.

 

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Kent Jordan Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Patty Shwartz Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress