Amir Basic and Gerard Arthus v. Numan A. Amouri, Mohamad H. Mohajeri, Mohammad Aslam Chaudhry, Adnan Khan, Imdad Zackariya, Mohammad Sirajuddin, Sarah Shaikh, Aijaz Shaikh, Ismail Al-Ani, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 303

In April 2015 the Islamic Society of Michiana (ISM) temporarily suspended board member Amir Basic for alleged misconduct; a later ISM membership vote removed him from the board. Gerard Arthus was not an active, dues-paying ISM member.
Basic and Arthus (pro se) filed suit (originally pleading inconsistently), seeking reinstatement, access to ISM records, removal of board/trustees, appointment of temporary trustee, elections, and $5.2 million.
The trial court denied injunctive relief and expressed concern that adjudication would intrude into ISM’s internal polity; Appellees moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for lack of standing.
The trial court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, held Basic and Arthus lacked standing; the court denied Appellants’ motion to correct errors.
On appeal the court found the appellants’ appendix and briefs severely deficient, their arguments non-cogent and invective, and concluded appellants waived their appellate issues.
Because appellants flagrantly disregarded appellate rules and briefed in procedural bad faith, the court affirmed and remanded for assessment of damages, including appellate attorney’s fees under App. R. 66(E).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to review ISM’s internal decisions	Basic/Arthus contended court could review suspension/removal and order relief (reinstatement, access to records)	Appellees argued the dispute concerned internal religious polity and was non-justiciable; court lacked jurisdiction	Court held appellants waived review by failing to present cogent appellate argument; trial court dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed
Whether appellants had standing to pursue claims	Basic asserted right to challenge removal and obtain records	Appellees argued Basic was not a voting member and Arthus lacked membership/standing	Court alternatively upheld trial court’s determination that appellants lacked standing (review waived but dismissal affirmed)
Whether certain subpoenas should have been quashed	Appellants argued subpoenas were proper and necessary to prove claims	Appellees maintained subpoenas were improper and intrusive	Court declined to address merits because appellants waived issues by failing to comply with appellate rules; ruling below affirmed
Whether appellate damages/attorney’s fees should be awarded under App. R. 66(E)	Appellants implicitly opposed sanctions by pursuing appeal pro se	Appellees sought damages and appellate fees for frivolous/bad-faith appeal	Court found procedural bad faith (defective appendix, hostile/invective brief, misrepresentations) and remanded to determine damages, including fees

Twin Lakes Reg’l Sewer Dist. v. Teumer, 992 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (pro se litigants held to same procedural standards as attorneys)
Shepherd v. Truex, 819 N.E.2d 457 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (failure to follow appellate rules can result in waiver)
Perry v. Anonymous Physician, 25 N.E.3d 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (court will not act as appellant’s advocate where noncompliance prevents review)
Thacker v. Wentzel, 797 N.E.2d 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (awarding appellate fees limited to appeals permeated by meritlessness or bad faith)
Troyer v. Troyer, 987 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (sanctions require something more egregious than mere lack of merit)
Holland v. Steele, 961 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (caution on awarding appellate fees due to chilling effect on appeals)
Srivastava v. Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation, 779 N.E.2d 52 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (pro se litigants may be liable for fees where they disregard procedural rules in bad faith)
Watson v. Thibodeau, 559 N.E.2d 1205 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (no leniency for pro se parties in complying with appellate rules)