Indelicato v. Mcbride & Son Mgmt. Co., ED 110121

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: Lisa P. Page, Judge
• Citation: 646 S.W.3d 305
• Parties: Bernadette B. INDELICATO, Appellant, v. MCBRIDE & SON MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.
• Docket Number: ED 110121
• Decision Date: 24 May 2022

646 S.W.3d 305

Bernadette B. INDELICATO, Appellant,
v.
MCBRIDE & SON MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.

No. ED 110121

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: May 24, 2022

FOR APPELLANT: Bernadette B. Indelicato, Acting Pro Se.

FOR RESPONDENTS: Ross A. Kaplan, 421 East Dunklin Street, PO Box 59, Jefferson City, Missouri 65104-0059, Kenneth P. Carp, P.O. Box 38162, St. Louis, Missouri 63138.

Lisa P. Page, Judge

Bernadette B. Indelicato (Claimant) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying her unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal due to Claimant's noncompliance with briefing requirements.

646 S.W.3d 307

Claimant filed her brief pro se. The Division of Employment Security (DES) filed a responsive brief and a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Rule 84.04,¹ arguing Claimant's brief violates Rule 84.04 in multiple respects and does not preserve any error for this Court to review. Claimant did not respond to the motion. The motion was taken with the case.²

Rule 84.04 sets forth appellate briefing requirements. Hoover v. Hoover , 581 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019). "An appellant's failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 ‘preserves nothing for our review and is grounds for dismissing the appeal.’ " Id. (quoting Wong v. Wong , 391 S.W.3d 917, 918 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) ). Parties appearing pro se , such as Claimant here, are "subject to the same procedural rules as parties represented by counsel, including the rules specifying the required contents of appellate briefs." Id.

Claimant's brief does not comply with Rule 84.04 in multiple respects. First, Claimant violates Rule 84.04(c), which requires that "[a]ll statements of facts shall have specific page references to the relevant portion of the record on appeal, i.e., legal file, transcript, or exhibits." Claimant's statement of facts does not include specific references to any portion of the record on appeal. "A violation of Rule 84.04(c), standing alone, constitutes grounds for dismissal of an appeal." Washington v. Blackburn , 286 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009).

Second, Claimant violates Rule 84.04(d)(5), which requires that "...