In Sullers v Int’l Union Elevator Constructors, Local #2, No. 24-1719 (7th Cir. June 27, 2025), a litigant in the Seventh Circuit barely avoids having their appeal dismissed on the grounds of inadequate briefing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 28.
The case involved an allegation of breach of the duty of fair representation against the plaintiff’s labor union. Plaintiff lost in the district court an appealed pro se.
The Seventh Circuit concludes that it may hear the appeal, despite inadequate briefing by the plaintiff.
“We begin our assessment of this appeal by addressing [defendant] IUEC’s submission that we ought to dismiss Mr. Sullers’s claim because his opening brief does not comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28. That rule requires that the brief contain the ‘appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities … on which the appellant relies.’ Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).”
The panel holds that this subsection requires “minimally adequate briefing.”
“Our insistence on this minimal requirement is no pedantic adherence to pointless formalism.” The time and judicial effort to construct the party’s arguments “impedes” the adjudicative process. Conversely, enforcement of this requirement “furthers society’s interest in judicial economy.” And “thorough briefing is especially important when the case concerns unsettled legal issues.”
“The requirements of Rule 28 are straightforward and attuned to the needs of effective appellate litigation: An appellant’s ‘brief must contain an argument consisting of more
than a generalized assertion of error, with citations to supporting authority’ . . . . ‘As the focus sharpens on appeal, an appellate court requires ‘more information and more comprehensive analysis than was provided for the district judge,’ not less’ . . . . Though the threshold for adequate briefing varies by case, briefs containing only minimal legal support do not pass muster.”
“Nevertheless, given our system’s preference for reaching a merits disposition whenever possible, we often adjudicate the merits, despite poor briefing.”
“In the present case, the section of Mr. Sullers’s brief pertaining to the merits of his fair representation claim is sparse, spanning less than three pages. His only citations to legal authority appear when he sets out the general duty of fair representation. He presents the substance of his argument in six bullet points, without specifying to which of the three grounds for breach each belongs. However, given our preference for a merits disposition and our ability to discern, from the briefs and record, the basic facts and Mr. Sullers’s general contentions, we can address the merits of Mr. Sullers’s claim in this relatively straightforward case.”
This gets us halfway through the opinion before reaching the merits. Unsurprisingly, plaintiff loses.
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 