Opinion ID: 2755207
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of Plaintiff's Appeal

Text: Plaintiff's notice of appeal presents the court with a preliminary jurisdictional quandary. Although Plaintiff now asserts that he appeals from both the district court's summary judgment decision and the denial of his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff's notice of appeal states only that he appeals from Final Order Denying Reconsideration of Entry of Judgment, entered in this action on November 22, 2013. The district court clerk entered the notice of appeal only as to [Docket Entry] 45, Order on Motion for Reconsideration; Plaintiff did not seek to correct that docket entry. However, Plaintiff's docketing statement in this court, filed twenty days after his notice of appeal, lists July 10, 2013 -- the date of the district court's summary judgment decision -- as the [d]ate of entry of judgment or order appealed from. A party's notice of appeal must designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). Rule 3(c) requirements are jurisdictional in nature, and their satisfaction is a prerequisite to appellate review. -5- Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992). While the Supreme Court instructs us to interpret these requirements broadly, it has warned litigants that the principle of liberal construction will not excuse noncompliance with the Rule. Id.; see also Chamorro v. Puerto Rican Cars, Inc., 304 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2002) (noting that while courts are not invariably . . . bound to read the notice of appeal literally, rescue missions are not automatic, and litigants will do well to draft notices of appeal with care). As a general rule, appellate jurisdiction is limited to review of orders and judgments specifically described in the notice of appeal. Rojas-Velázquez v. Figueroa-Sancha, 676 F.3d 206, 209 (1st Cir. 2012). Thus, failure to include a particular issue in a notice of appeal can be fatal to this court's jurisdiction over that issue. Constructora Andrade Gutiérrez, S.A. v. Am. Int'l Ins. Co. of P.R., 467 F.3d 38, 43 (1st Cir. 2006); see also Mariani-Giron v. Acevedo-Ruiz, 945 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1991) ([A]n appeal from the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion is not an appeal from the underlying judgment.). At oral argument, Plaintiff's counsel characterized his notice of appeal designation as an accident caused in part by the short amount of space provided on the form to write in the order being appealed from. Counsel argued that Plaintiff's notice of appeal, read in the context of the full record, including the docketing statement, fairly put CitiMortgage on notice that he -6- intended to appeal both the summary judgment and the reconsideration decisions. See Kotler v. Am. Tobacco Co., 981 F.2d 7, 11 (1st Cir. 1992). We are not persuaded that this is so. Past cases have construed a notice of appeal solely referencing the denial of reconsideration as encompassing appeal from the final judgment where the appellant's motion for reconsideration largely rehashed the arguments it made in opposition to the original judgment. Díaz Aviation Corp. v. Airport Aviation Servs., Inc., 716 F.3d 256, 262 (1st Cir. 2013); see also Town of Norwood v. New England Power Co., 202 F.3d 408, 415 (1st Cir. 2000) (reviewing both reconsideration decision and underlying dismissal where Rule 59(e) motion covered more or less the same points as opposition to dismissal and district court tersely denied [the motion for reconsideration] relying on its original decision) (emphasis in original). Other recent cases in this circuit have declined to reach this jurisdictional question when the denial of reconsideration specifically listed in the notice of appeal presents issues intertwined with the underlying judgment such that full as opposed to limited review does not alter the outcome [of the] case. McKenna v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 693 F.3d 207, 214 (1st Cir. 2012); Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Díaz-Santiago, 674 F.3d 21, 27 (1st Cir. 2012). Here, while the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration pointed to flaws in the earlier grant of summary judgment, the motion also raised new and -7- unique issues related to the district court's procedural handling of the case. Plaintiff's brief on appeal challenges the reconsideration denial on grounds distinct from argument concerning the summary judgment decision. To the extent he revisits certain substantive bases for the district court's summary judgment order, he argues only that the court made manifest errors of law and, as a result, abused its discretion; in other words, he makes arguments we can properly resolve on appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Those arguments, however, do not give us license to extend our analysis and reconsider the summary judgment order in full. While we do not doubt that Plaintiff may well have hoped to appeal both decisions, it is the notice afforded by a document, not the litigant's motivation in filing it, [that] determines the document's sufficiency under Rule 3(c). Smith, 502 U.S. at 248. Plaintiff's notice of appeal makes no reference to the district court's grant of summary judgment and specifically lists the reconsideration decision. The document cannot fairly be said to give CitiMortgage notice of Plaintiff's intent to appeal anything but the reconsideration decision and therefore fails to meet Rule 3(c)(1)(B)'s designation requirement as to any other order. Cf. Kotler, 981 F.2d at 11 (Omitting [one] order while, at the same time, designating a completely separate and independent order -8- loudly proclaims plaintiff's intention not to appeal from the former order.).