Zimmermann

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of their first amended complaint. The complaint challenges pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 the constitutionality of numerous provisions of Washington’s child welfare statutes and their federal counterparts. The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction, invoking the Younger abstention doctrine.

As an initial matter, we conclude that Plaintiffs’ briefs on appeal fail to provide *601 an understandable statement of facts, or an understandable argument, or an understandable analysis in support of the remedy they are seeking, as required by Rule 28(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. These are not just technical violations. Defendants are prejudiced because they can only guess at what Plaintiffs are trying to argue and thereby are hampered in their ability to develop an intelligent response. The court is placed in a similarly disadvantageous position. We dismiss Plaintiffs’ appeal for failure to comply with Rule 28(a). See N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 127 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir.1997).

Even if Plaintiffs’ briefs had satisfied F.R.A.P 28(a), we would still resolve the merits of this appeal…