Opinion ID: 485224
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A Question of Procedure

Text: 3 Rule 43(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that once a notice of appeal is filed, a substitution of parties, if any, is to be affected in the court of appeals in accordance with this subdivision. In part, Rule 43(a) states: If the deceased party has no representative, any party may suggest the death on the record and proceedings shall then be had as the court of appeals may direct. 3 Nevertheless, in this case, the IBEW first made a suggestion of death to the District Court and asked the District Court to vacate the judgment for this reason (March 24, 1986). In response to this motion, three of Mallick's fellow union members (Doyle, et al.) moved the District Court to substitute them for Mallick as plaintiffs in this action (April 21, 1986). 4 While these motions were pending in the District Court, the union made a suggestion of death to this court and asked that we delay the briefing schedule for its appeal to allow the District Court to rule on the pending substitution and vacation motions. Although the union members opposed any delay to the proceedings in this court, they expressed a willingness to have the District Court rule on their substitution request. See Appellee's Opposition to Motion to Suspend Briefing Schedule Indefinitely at 3. We granted the union's motion to delay the briefing schedule in this appeal. See Order (June 10, 1986). 5 Although the more normal course of proceeding under Fed.R.App.P. 43(a) is for this court to decide the substitution issue directly, the Rule provides that proceedings shall ... be had as the court of appeals may direct. We believe that this flexibility, built into the Rule, allows us to take cognizance of the District Court's opinion on the issue--especially in a case where the parties themselves have chosen to proceed before the District Court. Following our decision to await its ruling, the District Court ruled in favor of Doyle, et al. and substituted the new plaintiffs in this case. J.A. at 20 (June 18, 1986). Having solicited the District Court's opinion on this issue, we will adopt its order as our own and will permit the substitution under Fed.R.App.P. 43(a), unless we are convinced by the appellant union's argument that it is contrary to law. It is to that question we now turn.