Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co.

Summary

The Supreme Court held that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)'s requirement that a notice of appeal specify the party or parties taking the appeal is jurisdictional. An appellate court therefore lacks jurisdiction over a party whose name or identifying designation was omitted from the notice of appeal, even when the omission resulted from clerical error. The Court affirmed the judgment against Jose Torres, while Justice Brennan dissented.

Holdings

1. A party who is neither named nor otherwise designated in a notice of appeal has not complied with Rule 3(c)'s requirement that the notice specify the party or parties taking the appeal.
2. The Ninth Circuit lacked jurisdiction over Torres because he was never named or otherwise designated in the notice of appeal and did not seek to amend the notice within the time allowed by Rule 4.
3. The phrase 'et al.' is insufficient to designate an omitted appellant because it does not provide fair notice of the specific individual or entity seeking appellate review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether omission of a party's name from a notice of appeal violates the specificity requirement of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c).
2. Whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction over a party who was not named or otherwise specifically designated in the notice of appeal.
3. Whether the use of 'et al.' in a notice of appeal provides sufficient notice that an omitted party intends to appeal.

Disposition

affirmed