Task: songer_realresp

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
Your task is to determine whether or not the formally listed respondents in the case are the "real parties." That is, are they the parties whose real interests are most directly at stake? (e.g., in some appeals of adverse habeas corpus petition decisions, the respondent is listed as the judge who denied the petition, but the real parties are the prisoner and the warden of the prison) (another example would be "Jones v A 1990 Rolls Royce" where Jones is a drug agent trying to seize a car which was transporting drugs - the real party would be the owner of the car). For cases in which an independent regulatory agency is the listed respondent, the following rule was adopted: If the agency initiated the action to enforce a federal rule or the agency was sued by a litigant contesting an agency action, then the agency was coded as a real party. However, if the agency initially only acted as a forum to settle a dispute between two other litigants, and the agency is only listed as a party because its ruling in that dispute is at issue, then the agency is considered not to be a real party. For example, if a union files an unfair labor practices charge against a corporation, the NLRB hears the dispute and rules for the union, and then the NLRB petitions the court of appeals for enforcement of its ruling in an appeal entitled "NLRB v Widget Manufacturing, INC." the NLRB would be coded as not a real party. Note that under these definitions, trustees are usually "real parties" and parents suing on behalf of their children and a spouse suing on behalf of their injured or dead spouse are also "real parties."

VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge:
Helen J. Rados appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Curtin, C.J.), dismissing her wrongful death action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Although the jurisdiction of this Court was not challenged by any of the parties, we raised the question of jurisdiction sua sponte at oral argument. See Matarese v. LeFevre, 801 F.2d 98, 104 (2d Cir.1986). After hearing argument, we dismissed the appeal by summary order, indicating that this opinion would follow.
Following Chief Judge Curtin’s order of dismissal, judgment was entered by the Clerk of the District Court on May 15, 1986. On May 29, 1986, Rados moved for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Before Judge Curtin decided that motion, Rados filed a notice of appeal. Since that time, Judge Curtin has requested and obtained additional briefs from the parties on the issue of whether a sanction less severe than dismissal might have been more appropriate. That matter is still under advisement by the district judge.
Excluding weekends and Memorial Day, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), appellant’s motion for reconsideration was served within the ten-day period allowed for a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Since the motion was served within ten days of the judgment and placed the correctness of the judgment in question, it was the functional equivalent of a motion to amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), and should be treated as if it were a 59(e) motion for purposes of determining appellate jurisdiction. Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp., 682 F.2d 37, 41 (2d Cir.1982); Charles v. Daley, 799 F.2d 343, 347 (7th Cir.1986); Skagerberg v. State of Oklahoma, 797 F.2d 881 (10th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Harcon Barge Co., Inc. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 669-70 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 398, 93 L.Ed.2d 351 (1986); Schaurer v. Coombe, 108 F.R.D. 180, 182 (W.D.N.Y.1985); 9 Moore’s Federal Practice If 204.12[1], at 4-67 (1985). Because Rados’ motion, construed as a Rule 59(e) motion to amend, has not yet been decided by the district court, her notice of appeal filed during the pendency of the motion was a nullity under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4), and did not confer jurisdiction on this Court. Acosta v. Louisiana Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 2876, 92 L.Ed.2d 192 (1986) (per curiam); Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (per curiam).
It was for the above reasons that we dismissed this appeal in our summary order of November 21, 1986. If the motion now pending in the district court ultimately is denied, Rados may, of course, file a new notice of appeal.

Question: Are the formally listed respondents in the case the "real parties", that is, are they the parties whose real interests are most directly at stake?
A. both 1st and 2nd listed respondents are real parties (or only one respondent, and that respondent is a real party)
B. the 1st respondent is not a real party
C. the 2nd respondent is not a real party
D. neither the 1st nor the 2nd respondents are real parties
E. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: E