Opinion ID: 2973485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The notice of appeal in question stated that the plaintiff “hereby appeals to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, from an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s case entered in this action on the 3rd day of February, 2005.” Relying on two unpublished opinions, York argues that “compliance with Rule 3(c) is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional,’” and that as a result of Orzechowski’s error this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. What York fails to address is our en banc decision in Dillon v. United States, in which we held that: [W]hile the requirements of Rule 3(c) are jurisdictional in the sense that a notice of appeal must explicitly name the court to which an appeal is taken when there is more than one potential appellate forum, where only one avenue of appeal exists, Rule 3(c)(1)(C) is satisfied even if the notice of appeal does not name the appellate court. Under the latter circumstances, filing the notice of appeal with the clerk of the district court from whose judgment the appeal is taken has the practical effect of designating the appropriate court of appeals and thereby eliminating any possible confusion with respect to the appellate forum. 184 F.3d 556, 557 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (internal citation omitted). See also Caudill v. Hollan, 431 F.3d 900, 905 (6th Cir. 2005) (“[I]f the notice of appeal was technically -2- 05-3301 Orzechowski v. York International Corp. deficient, we hold that such a technical deficiency should not prevent us from reaching the merits of the appeal, nor does such a technical deficiency divest us of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. To rule otherwise would be to rely on an overly technical reading of Fed. R. App. P. 3(c).”). Although in this case Orzechowski did not merely omit the name of the court to which he was appealing but, instead, incorrectly identified the intended court, it is clear that he was appealing to the Sixth Circuit. Moreover, there was no prejudice to York, and Orzechowski eventually corrected the error.1 We hold that the careless but obviously unintentional error does not defeat jurisdiction in this case. York also argues that we lack jurisdiction to hear Orzechowski’s appeal of the dismissal of his promissory estoppel claim because the notice of appeal does not specify his intent to appeal the February 14, 2003, dismissal of that claim. However, “[i]t has long been the rule ‘that an appeal of a final judgment draws into question all prior non-final rulings and orders.’” Caudill, 431 F.3d at 904. Moreover, this issue is of little consequence. Although Orzechowski attempts to revive his promissory estoppel claim on appeal, he does 1 In a letter dated July 20, 2005, Orzechowski’s attorney informed the court that: The Notice of Appeal incorrectly indicates that the Appellant is appealing to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. This was an unintentional typographical error and should instead designate the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as the Court Appellant is appealing to. -3- 05-3301 Orzechowski v. York International Corp. so by rolling the promissory estoppel claim into his breach of contract claim. The breach of contract claim is clearly within our jurisdiction.