Torres V Oakland Scavenger Co

Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Company 487 U.S. 312 TIMELINE OF EVENTS:

AUGUST 31, 1981

SEPTEMEBER 29, 1981

District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim warranting relief A Notice of appeal was filed in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings

Issue: Whether a Federal Appellate Court has jurisdiction over a party who was not specified in the notice of appeal in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c). On remand, OAKLAND SCAVENGER COMPANY moved for a partial summary judgment on the ground that the prior judgment of dismissal was final as to TORRES by virtue of his failure to appeal. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment order holding that “unless a party is named in the Notice of Appeal, the appellate court does not have jurisdiction over him.” See, Farley Transportation Co. v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 778 F.2d 1365.

CERTIORARI was granted to resolve ISSUE. Judgment Affirmed. The Court of Appeals could not waive jurisdictional requirement of naming parties to appeal, even for good cause shown, and the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction over appeal of litigant who was not specified in NOA due to clerical error on part of secretary employed by litigant’s attorney. * “Good Cause Shown” gives courts of appeals the power to suspend the requirements or provisions of any of these rules in a particular case on application of a party or on its own motion. The exception forbids a court to enlarge the time limits for filing a notice of appeal. Holding: Failure to file a NOTICE OF APPEAL in accordance with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedures 3(c)’s requirement that the notice “specify the party or parties taking the appeal” presents a jurisdictional bar to the appeal.

Reasoning: The exception to Notice of Appeal found in FRAP 3(c), is that an appeal “shall not be dismissed for informality of form or title of the Notice to Appeal.” This exception refers to

document format. This does not aid TORRES in this case. The failure to name a party in a NOA is more than excusable “informality”. The use of “et all” which literally means “and others” in the caption where parties are listed on a Complaint, was not sufficient to indicate TORRES’ intention to appeal. The use of the phrase “et al.,” utterly fails to provide such notice to either intended party. Courts
Nature, Extent, and Exercise of Jurisdiction in General
Loss or Divestitute of Jurisdiction Rule: Courts may not exercise jurisdiction over unnamed parties after time for filing of appeal has passed (F.R.A.P. Rules 4, 26(b), 28 U.S.C.A.) Courts
Establishment, Organization, and Procedure
Rules of Court and Conduct of Business
Operation and Effect of Rules
Construction and Application of Rules in General Rule: If litigant files papers in fashion that is technically at variance with letter of procedural rule, court may nonetheless find litigant has complied with rule if litigant’s action is functional equivalent of what rule requires (F.R.A.P. Rule 2, 28 U.S.C.A.) Federal Courts
Courts of Appeals
Proceedings for Transfer of Case
Notice, Writ of Error or Citation
Time for Filing in General Rule: Although courts may construe Rules of Appellate Procedure liberally in determining whether they have been complied with, it may not waive jurisdictional requirements of rules requiring that notice of appeal be filed with clerk of district court within the time prescribed for taking of appeal, even for good cause shown, if it finds that jurisdictional requirements have not been met. (F.R.A.P. Rules 2-4, 28 U.S.C.A) Federal Courts
Courts of Appeals
Scope, Standards, and Extent
Harmless Error
Particular Errors as Harmless or Prejudicial Rule: Litigant’s failure to clear jurisdictional hurdle can never be “harmless” or waived by the court. (F.R.A.P. Rule 2, 28 U.S.C.A.) Federal Courts
Courts of Appeals
Proceedings for Transfer of Case
Notice, Writ of Error or Citation
Requisites and Sufficiency; Defects Rule: Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction over litigant in purported class action due to omission of litigant’s name in notice of appeal as result of clerical error on part of secretary employed by litigant’s attorney (F.R.A.P. Rules 2-4, 3(c), 28 U.S.C.A.). Federal Courts
Courts of Appeals
Proceeding for Transfer of Case
Notice, Writ of Error or Citation
Requisites and Sufficiency; Defects Rule: Specificity requirement of rule requiring naming of parties in notice of appeal is met only by some designation that gives fair notice of specific individual or entity seeking to appeal (F.R.A.P. Rule 3(c), 28 U.S.C.A.).

2