Le v. Labor Comm'n., Kirsh and Phoenix Ins. Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---Ngoc Van Le, Petitioner, v. Utah Labor Commission, Levolor Kirsh and Phoenix Insurance Co., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20080808-CA F I L E D (December 4, 2008) 2008 UT App 441 ----Original Proceeding in this Court Attorneys: Ngoc Van Le, West Valley City, Petitioner Pro Se Alan L. Hennebold, Salt Lake City, for Respondent Utah Labor Commission Mark R. Sumsion and Michael K. Woolley, Salt Lake City, for Respondents Levolor Kirsh and Phoenix Insurance Co. ----- Before Judges Bench, Davis, and McHugh. PER CURIAM: Ngoc Van Le appeals the Utah Labor Commission's August 28, 2008 order denying his request for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal. Rule 9(f) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that "[d]ocketing statements which fail to comply with this rule will not be accepted. Failure to comply [with rule 9] may result in the dismissal of the appeal or petition." Utah R. App. P. 9(f). The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that docketing statements must fully comply with rule 9 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Gregory v. Fourthwest Invs. Ltd., 735 P.2d 33, 34 (Utah 1987). Failure to comply with this rule constrains this court to dismissal of the appeal, particularly in those circumstances where this court has specifically ordered a party to amend his or her docketing statement. See id. Respondent Levolor Kirsh filed a motion for summary disposition, asserting that Le's docketing statement failed to raise any issue for appeal or meet any of the mandatory requirements set forth in rule 9(c). This court denied the motion for summary disposition and expressly ordered Le to file an amended docketing statement that substantially complied with rule 9 by November 24, 2008. Although Le timely refiled his docketing statement, he failed to properly identify any issue for appeal or otherwise amend his docketing statement as required by this court's order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ Russell W. Bench, Judge ______________________________ James Z. Davis, Judge ______________________________ Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge 20080808-CA 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
