Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-98-01466/USCOURTS-caDC-98-01466-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CSX Transportation, Inc.
Intervenor
Elkins Carmen
Petitioner
Surface Transportation Board
Respondent
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed April 2, 1999

No. 98-1466

Elkins Carmen,

Petitioners

v.

Surface Transportation Board

and United States of America,

Respondents

CSX Transportation, Inc.,

Intervenor

On Motion to Dismiss

Jeffrey Stephen Berlin was on the motion to dismiss on

behalf of intervenor CSX Transportation, Inc.

Paul Joseph Harris was on the opposition on behalf of

petitioners.

USCA Case #98-1466 Document #426983 Filed: 04/02/1999 Page 1 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Wald, Sentelle, and Randolph, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.

Per Curiam: This is a petition for judicial review of an

order of the Surface Transportation Board. The petition is

filed in the name of "Elkins Carmen." CSX Transportation,

Inc., an intervenor, moves to dismiss on the ground that

petitioners failed to identify themselves, as Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 15(a) requires.

Rule 15(a) states: "The petition for review must name each

party seeking review either in the caption or in the body of

the petition. Use of such terms as 'et al.,' or 'petitioners,' or

'respondents' is not effective to name the parties." Before its

amendment in 1993, Rule 15(a)'s naming-of-petitioners requirement corresponded with the one contained in Fed. R.

App. P. 3(c) for notices of appeals from judgments of district

courts. In Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312

(1988), the Supreme Court held that a notice of appeal not

naming a party taking the appeal, as Rule 3(c) required,

deprived the court of appeals of jurisdiction over the unnamed party. Responding to Torres, the 1993 amendment to

Rule 3(c) allowed appellants more leeway, see Cleveland v.

Porca Co., 38 F.3d 289, 293 (7th Cir. 1994); Fed. R. App. P.

3(c), advisory committee notes. Rule 15(a), in contrast, was

changed to clarify that each petitioner seeking judicial review

had to be specifically named. The note accompanying the

Rule 15(a) amendment stated:

Both Rule 3(c) and Rule 15(a) state that a notice of

appeal or a petition for review must name the parties

seeking appellate review. Rule 3(c), however, provides

an attorney who represents more than one party on

appeal the flexibility to describe the parties in general

terms rather than naming them individually. Rule 15(a)

does not allow that flexibility; each petitioner must be

named. A petition for review of an agency decision is

USCA Case #98-1466 Document #426983 Filed: 04/02/1999 Page 2 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the first filing in any court and, therefore, is analogous to

a complaint in which all parties must be named.

Fed. R. App. P. 15(a), advisory committee note.

Until 1981, petitioners were employed as freight car repairmen in Elkins, West Virginia, by Western Maryland Railway

Company, the corporate predecessor of CSX. In 1993,

prompted by CSX's application for permission to abandon the

Elkins line, petitioners (represented by a single counsel) filed

a claim for severance benefits with the National Railroad

Adjustment Board. In the claim, petitioners identified themselves as "Elkins Carmen" and attached a list of their individual names. The Adjustment Board denied petitioners' claim,

and in 1996, the Surface Transportation Board permitted

CSX to abandon the Elkins line.

Petitioners then filed an action for injunctive relief in the

United States District Court for the Northern District of

West Virginia. In the complaint and other documents filed in

that court, petitioners again called themselves "Elkins Carmen" and referred to an attachment containing their names.

The district court dismissed the claim for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction and directed the parties to submit the

issue to arbitration.

In May 1998, CSX obtained a favorable arbitration ruling.

Petitioners appealed to the Surface Transportation Board.

The Board affirmed in a decision issued July 31, 1998. Petitioners then filed this instant petition for review, which refers

to them as "Elkins Carmen" and does not attach or reference

any list of the individuals involved. The petition attaches a

copy of the Surface Transportation Board's decision, but that

document also lacks any list of the individuals involved.

The petition here neither specifies any individual petitioner

by name nor does it refer to a listing of names. The "Elkins

Carmen," in opposing the motion to dismiss, tell us that it is

an "unincorporated association" of 41 individuals, previously

employed at the Elkins, West Virginia freight car shop of

CSX's predecessor, and now united together for the common

purpose of seeking severance pay and other benefits. Yet

nothing in the petition, or in the attachments to it, suggests

that Elkins Carmen is an association. There is no reference

to meetings, bylaws, members, officers, publications, dues or

property. Compare State of Georgia v. National Democratic

Party, 447 F.2d 1271, 1273 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1971). Each

document "petitioners" filed in this court, and in all other

proceedings, has used "Elkins Carmen" as a collective term, a

plural. The caption of the petition for judicial review reads

"Elkins Carmen, Petitioners." This designation is inconsistent with the claim that it is a single entity.

Because the petition for judicial review does not comply

with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(a), the motion to

dismiss is granted.

USCA Case #98-1466 Document #426983 Filed: 04/02/1999 Page 3 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

So 

ordered.

USCA Case #98-1466 Document #426983 Filed: 04/02/1999 Page 4 of 4