State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Randall Spears, Appellant.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1996).

  STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

  C0-97-2307

Yer Vang,

Appellant,

vs.

Caterair International Corporation

(d/b/a Marriott In-Flite Food Services Division MSP),

a Delaware corporation,

Respondent,

LSG, Lufthansa Services Sky Chefs, et al.,

Defendants.

  Filed September 8, 1998

 Affirmed

  Crippen, Judge

Hennepin County District Court

File No. 9611712

Jesse Gant, III, The Gant Law Office, 500 Flour Exchange Building, 310 Fourth Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55415 (for appellant)

Gary S. Kaplan, Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603; and

Robert L. Bach, Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, 4200 First Bank Place, 601 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge, Crippen, Judge, and Forsberg, Judge.[*]

  U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 CRIPPEN, Judge

Although a trial court jury awarded appellant $1,107 lost wages in a suit against her former employer, she appeals findings that she was not entitled to relief on other claims. Because appellant has not furnished an adequate record of trial proceedings, we are unable to review any of her contentions on their merits, and we affirm.

  D E C I S I O N

Appellant's failure to provide a complete transcript of the trial is fatal to this appeal. She disputes findings of fact on her battery, false imprisonment, negligent supervision, and racial discrimination claims, offering descriptions of testimony that is not part of the record presented to us on appeal. Noltimier v. Noltimier, 280 Minn. 28, 29, 157 N.W.2d 530, 531 (1968) (court may dismiss appeal where appellant fails to provide an adequate record for review of the issues); Wanglie v. Wanglie, 356 N.W.2d 850, 852 (Minn. App. 1984) (recognizing that the court could not consider a claim where relevant portions of the transcript were not provided), review denied (Minn. Feb. 6, 1985). Appellant's damages claims rely on exhibits she included in the appendix to her brief. Without a complete transcript, we cannot determine if these exhibits were admitted into evidence. And we cannot attribute weight to the exhibits without a complete transcript. Similarly, we cannot assess the weight of the expert testimony shown in a partial transcript furnished with appellant's brief. In sum, we are unable to review any of appellant's claims on the merits.

Finally, we deny appellant's motion to amend the case caption to include another named defendant in the appeal proceedings, because this party was not served with notice of this appeal. Johnson v. Nessel Town, 486 N.W.2d 834, 837 (Minn. App. 1992) (claims involving a party that was not served should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).

In light of the disposition already noted, we deny respondent's motions to strike appellant's statement of facts and to strike her post-briefing submissions of argument. We decline to award fees connected with these motion proceedings.

Affirmed.

[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.