Vermillion v. Corizon Health, Inc.

Ct. of Appeals struck pro se appellant’s opening brief because it contained more than 14,000 countable words allowed under Rule 32(a)(7). While Ct. of Appeals subsequently issued rule to show cause as to why appellant should not be sanctioned for falsely claiming that his brief complied with applicable word limit, Ct. ultimately discharged said rule after finding that pro se appellant made good faith effort to comply with court rules, and that, among other things, appellant misunderstood Rule 32(f) by asserting that words in footnotes did not count towards applicable limit. As such, Ct. observed that all words count towards applicable limit except for items specifically contained in Rule 32(f).