Nyssen v. Zarrinmehr
Key Takeaways
- 1 Incomplete appellate record dooms pro se appeal of plenary stalking no contact order.
- 2 Pro se litigants held to same Rule 341(h) briefing standards as licensed attorneys.
- 3 Relevant for family law and civil protection order attorneys advising clients on appellate procedure and record preservation.
Summary
Emma Nyssen filed a petition for a stalking no contact order against Shahryar Zarrinmehr in the Circuit Court of Cook County. After an emergency order was entered and extended multiple times, the trial court entered a plenary stalking no contact order on November 5, 2025, prohibiting Zarrinmehr from contacting Nyssen, approaching her residence or workplace within 100 feet, and possessing a FOID card or firearms. Zarrinmehr appealed pro se, challenging the trial court's factual findings underlying the plenary order.
The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, affirmed on two independent grounds. First, Zarrinmehr's brief failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h): his statement of facts contained argument rather than a fair recitation of the record, and he cited no legal authorities whatsoever. The court emphasized that supreme court rules are not mere suggestions and that pro se status confers no procedural leniency. Second, and dispositive, Zarrinmehr failed to include a report of proceedings from the November 5, 2025 hearing, and provided no acceptable substitute such as a bystander's report or agreed statement of facts under Rule 323. Applying Foutch v. O'Bryant, the court presumed the trial court's order conformed with law and had a sufficient factual basis.
This case is a practical reminder that appellate success depends on record preservation and strict compliance with briefing rules. Attorneys representing clients in protection order proceedings should ensure a complete transcript is ordered and that appellate briefs fully comply with Rule 341(h) requirements.
Key Holdings
1. An appellant's failure to include a report of proceedings or an acceptable substitute (bystander's report or agreed statement of facts) from the challenged hearing requires the appellate court to presume the trial court's order conformed with law and had a sufficient factual basis, precluding reversal. 2. A statement of facts that contains argument rather than a fair and accurate recitation of the record violates Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(6), and failure to cite any supporting legal authorities violates Rule 341(h)(7). 3. Pro se litigants are held to the same procedural and briefing standards as licensed attorneys and receive no special leniency for noncompliance with Illinois Supreme Court rules. 4. The standard of review for entry of a stalking no contact order is whether the trial court's finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence, but that review is unavailable without an adequate record of the proceedings below.