Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05124/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05124-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

ALAND. KNOX, an Illinois resident, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

NORMAN w. KNOX, a Texas resident; 

MARTIN A. KNOX, an Iowa resident; 

GEORGE NOLAN KNOX, III, a Florida 

resident; RUTH MCCOLLUM, an Alabama 

resident; SHIRLEY KNOX PEDERSON, 

an Iowa resident, 

Plaintiffs, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

Un iced States Court of .Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

SEP 2 0 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 89-5124 

GENE W. KNOX, an Oklahoma resident; 

KATHLEEN SUE KNOX, an Oklahoma 

resident; SONDRA KAY STACY, 

a Colorado resident, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) (D.C. No. 88-C-740-E) 

) (N.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-5124 Document: 010110042242 Date Filed: 09/20/1990 Page: 1 
assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff, Alan D. Knox, appeals from an order of the 

district court dismissing, with prejudice, this cause of action 

for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We 

affirm. 

Before addressing the merits of this appeal, we must consider 

a jurisdictional issue which the parties briefed at the court's 

request. The parties were asked to brief whether the notice of 

appeal is affected by Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 

312 (1988). The caption of the notice of appeal states "Alan D. 

Knox, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Gene W. Knox, et al. Defendants." The 

text of the body of the notice of appeal states, in part, "Notice 

is hereby given that Plaintiff's (sic] hereby appeal " 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) requires that the 

notice of appeal specify the parties appealing. Torres, 487 U.S. 

at 314 ("The failure to name a party in a notice of appeal is 

... a failure of that party to appeal."). The use of "et al." 

is insufficient under Rule 3(c) to provide notice of the identity 

of the appellants. Id. at 317-18. Stating "the plaintiffs 

appeal" is also insufficient to provide notice. Cf. 

Santos-Martinez v. Soto-Santiago, 863 F.2d 174, 176 (1st Cir. 

1988)("all plaintiffs appeal" insufficient under Torres when 

caption merely says "et al."). 

Because Alan D. Knox is specifically listed in the notice of 

appeal, this court has jurisdiction over his appeal. See Laidley 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-5124 Document: 010110042242 Date Filed: 09/20/1990 Page: 2 
, 

v. McClain, __ F.2d __ , No. 89-5016 (10th Cir. Sept. 13, 1990); 

see also Minority Employees of the Tenn. Dep't of Employment Sec., 

Inc. v. Tennessee, 901 F.2d 1327, 1330 (6th Cir. 1990)(en 

banc)(ttet al.tt is insufficient to designate appellants in notice 

of appeal; each and every appellant must be named); Barnett v. 

Petro-Tex Chem. Corp., 893 F.2d 800, 804-05 (5th Cir.)(only party 

actually named in notice of appeal is appellant when "et al." is 

used, unless there are only two parties), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 

3274 (1990). There is, however, no jurisdiction over the 

remaining plaintiffs, because they were not specifically named in 

the notice of appeal. See Laidley v. McClain, supra; see also 

Mariani-Giron v. Acevedo-Ruiz, 877 F.2d 1114, 1116 (1st Cir. 

1989)(neither caption nor body of notice of appeal specified all 

parties appealing); cf. Tri-Crown, Inc. v. American Fed. Sav. & 

Loan Ass'n, 908 F.2d 578, 580, (10th Cir. 1990)(reading caption 

and body of notice of appeal together indicated parties' intent to 

appeal). 

Plaintiffs commenced this action in the district court for 

relief from fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud allegedly 

committed by defendants before and during an Oklahoma probate 

proceeding. The district court dismissed the action with 

prejudice for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6), after concluding collateral estoppel precluded it from 

hearing the issues already ruled on by the probate court. 

Alan D. Knox appealed to this court arguing the dismissal 

should have been without prejudice because the district court did 

not rule on the merits of the action and dismissal with prejudice 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-5124 Document: 010110042242 Date Filed: 09/20/1990 Page: 3 
bars him from amending the complaint. Alan D. Knox's arguments 

are without merit. Although the district court stated that it was 

"unnecessary to consider or determine the merits of this case," a 

dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) falls under the 

wording of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(b) serving as a decision on the 

merits. N.A.A.C.P. v. Hunt, 891 F.2d 1555, 1560 (11th Cir. 1990); 

Dyer v. Intera Corp., 870 F.2d 1063, 1066 (6th Cir. 1989); United 

States v. Maull, 855 F.2d 514, 516 n.3 (8th Cir. 1988); Cannon v. 

Loyola Univ., 784 F.2d 777, 780 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 

U.S. 1033 (1987); Hall v. Tower Land & Inv. Co., 512 F.2d 481, 483 

(5th Cir. 1975). Moreover, collateral estoppel is a defense like 

any other, and, because proved, defendants were entitled to 

judgment on the merits. Cf. White v. Elrod, 816 F.2d 1172, 1175 

(7th Cir.)(res judicata), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 924 (1987). 

Also, nothing in the record or briefs on appeal indicates 

dismissal with leave to amend would serve a useful purpose. See 

Wright v. Anthony, 733 F.2d 575, 577 (8th Cir. 1984). 

Because the complaint failed to state a claim for relief 

against defendants and dismissal with leave to amend would serve 

no useful purpose, we conclude the district court was within its 

discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. See id. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. The appeal is 

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as to all plaintiffs except 

Alan D. Knox. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-5124 Document: 010110042242 Date Filed: 09/20/1990 Page: 4