Vassil M. Marinov v. Fiat Chrysler Automotive (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 11, 2018
• Docket: 79A02-1711-SC-2807
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 11 2018, 9:09 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Vassil M. Marinov Todd M. Nierman West Lafayette, Indiana Bonnie L. Martin Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Vassil M. Marinov, September 11, 2018 Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No. 79A02-1711-SC-2807 v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court Fiat Chrysler Automotive, The Honorable Laura W. Zeman, Appellee-Defendant Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79D04-1706-SC-2079

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1711-SC-2807 | September 11, 2018 Page 1 of 4 [1] Vassil M. Marinov, pro se, appeals the small claims court’s grant of Fiat

Chrysler Automotive’s motion to dismiss Marinov’s complaint under the

Indiana Wage Payment Act. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] At some point prior to June 19, 2017, Marinov worked for, and then was

terminated by, Fiat Chrysler. On June 19, 2017, Marinov filed a claim in small

claims court under the Indiana Wage Claims Act, Indiana Code section 22-2-9-

3, et. seq., alleging Fiat Chrysler had not paid him for one holiday, forty hours of

vacation time, and supplemental unemployment benefits. On October 5, 2017, 1

the small claims court granted Fiat Chrysler’s motion to dismiss. Marinov filed

a motion to correct error on October 24, 2017, which the small claims court

denied on October 26, 2017. 2

Discussion and Decision [3] It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed

attorneys and are required to follow procedural rules. Perry v. Anonymous

Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 105 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, cert.

denied 135 S. Ct. 227 (October 5, 2015). “We will not become an advocate for a

1 Neither side states the filings which occurred between June 19 and October 5, 2017, and Marinov did not file a proper Chronological Case Summary. 2 Marinov requested, and we granted, permission to file a belated appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1711-SC-2807 | September 11, 2018 Page 2 of 4 party, nor will we address arguments which are either inappropriate, too poorly

developed or improperly expressed to be understood.” Terpstra v. Farmers &

Merch. Bank, 483 N.E.2d 749, 754 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985), reh’g denied, trans.

denied.

[4] Our Appellate Rules explain the sections of a brief on appeal and, regarding the

argument section of the brief, states: “The argument must contain the

contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent

reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to authorities,

statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied upon[.]”

Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Failure to present a cogent argument results in

waiver of the issue on appeal. Srivastava v. Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation, Inc.,

779 N.E.2d 52, 54 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Marinov’s non-compliance with

Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) is fatal to his case.

[5] On appeal, Marinov does not explain the legal basis for his claim before the

small claims court, except to list the days he claims he is owed wages and to

state: “The Plaintiff demands judgment against you for $3,100.00., plus court

cost of this action and under Indiana Low HEA 1469 two times of all no pay

amounts-sums.” (Br. of Appellant at 3) (errors in original). The remainder of

Marinov’s brief and his reply brief are rephrasings of his contentions that (1) the

small claims court’s decision was incorrect; (2) he was not given the

opportunity to present his case; and (3) there was no evidence on which the

small claims court could have based its decision. Marinov does not cite the

record, nor does he cite any case law or statute to support his arguments.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1711-SC-2807 | September 11, 2018 Page 3 of 4 [6] In addition, pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 50(A)(2)(a), Marinov’s

appendix is required to contain “the chronological case summary for the trial

court or Administrative Agency.” The “Chronological Case Summary”

included in Marinov’s appendix is a page, typed presumably by Marinov, with

four dates - the date Marinov filed his claim, the date of the trial court’s order,

the date of Marinov’s motion to correct error, and the date the trial court denied

his motion to correct error. (See Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 2.) “[W]ithout a

copy of the chronological case summary for the trial court . . . we have no way

of determining whether the parties’ statements of the case are accurate.” Hughes

v. King, 808 N.E.2d 146, 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). The failure to include an

item in an appendix does not itself waive an argument. App. R. 49(B).

However, the dearth of items relevant to the appeal, such as the trial court’s

Chronological Case Summary and Fiat Chrysler’s motion to dismiss, coupled

with the absence of any cogent argument supported by the record or case law

on appeal, results in waiver in this case.

Conclusion [7] As Marinov has waived his appellate arguments by so substantially violating

the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure that we cannot address his appeal, we

affirm the decision of the small claims court.

[8] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1711-SC-2807 | September 11, 2018 Page 4 of 4