Vicki Stefanini v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICKI STEFANINI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
STEPHEN CARLOCK,
Defendant.
No. 20-15240
D.C. No. 5:18-cv-07051-NC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 8, 2021
Portland, Oregon
Before: M. MURPHY,** PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Michael R. Murphy, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
AUG 2 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Plaintiff-Appellant Vicki Stefanini brings this suit against Defendant-
Appellee Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“HPE”), alleging gender
discrimination, retaliation, and the failure to pay wages to which she is entitled.
She appeals the district court’s summary judgment decision in HPE’s favor. We
dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
28(a)(6).
Under Rule 28(a)(6), “[t]he appellant’s brief must contain . . . a concise
statement of the case setting out the facts relevant to the issues submitted for
review, describing the relevant procedural history, and identifying the rulings
presented for review, with appropriate references to the record.” Stefanini “has
exhibited complete disregard for [those] requirements,” citing only the first page of
the summary judgment decision and the first pages of several district court filings,
which are not themselves evidence.1 Han v. Stanford Univ., 210 F.3d 1038, 1040
(9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Mitchel v. Gen. Elec. Co., 689 F.2d 877, 879 (9th Cir.
1982)) (dismissing the appeal because the “appellees’ brief cited Mitchel and
requested dismissal of the appeal, yet [the appellant] did not take the opportunity to
1 She cites the first page of her amended complaint, HPE’s notice of
removal, the district court case assignment, the first page of HPE’s motion to
dismiss, the first page of HPE’s answer, the first page of HPE’s motion for
summary judgment, the judgment, the notice of appeal, the first pages of two of
HPE’s attorneys’ declarations (which are contentless), and the first page of
Stefanini’s supervisor’s declaration (which is contentless other than to state that the
supervisor is an HPE sales director).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
file a reply brief that could have cured the defects”).2
DISMISSED, with the parties to bear their own costs.
2 In its answering brief, HPE pointed out the defects in Stefanini’s counseled
opening brief and cited Mitchel for the proposition that the panel has the discretion
to dismiss the appeal because of those defects. In her counseled reply brief, Stefanini
denied that her opening brief was defective (and so of course did not try to cure the
defects) and compounded the problem by again reciting facts purportedly in the
record without accompanying appropriate references to the record.

-- 3 of 3 --