Opinion ID: 511045
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Subject Matter of the Appeal

Text: 14 A less technical approach is used under Rule 3(c)'s requirement that the subject matter of the appeal be designated. We have held that a mistake in designating the judgment appealed from should not bar appeal as long as the intent to appeal a specific judgment can be fairly inferred and the appellee is not prejudiced or misled by the mistake. United States v. One 1977 Mercedes Benz, 708 F.2d 444, 451 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1071, 104 S.Ct. 981, 79 L.Ed.2d 217 (1984). 15 A two-part test is used to determine whether intent and prejudice are present: first, whether the affected party had notice of the issue on appeal; and, second, whether the affected party had an opportunity to fully brief the issue. Lynn v. Sheet Metal Workers' Intern. Assoc., 804 F.2d 1472, 1481 (9th Cir.1986), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1219, 99 L.Ed.2d 420 (1988). Here, the notice of appeal designated as the subjects of appeal only the district court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for mistrial and its grant of directed verdict in favor of the County of Los Angeles. The directed verdict in favor of Buhler is not designated as a subject matter of the appeal. 16 The plaintiffs served interested parties with a copy of their brief, in which they attack the district court's grants of directed verdicts in favor of the County and in favor of Buhler. 1 The envelope containing the briefs was addressed to the County Counsel, who, along with the law firm of Chase, Rotchford, Drukker & Bogust, represents both the County and Buhler. Buhler fully briefed the directed verdict issue. Therefore, Buhler had notice of the issue and did not suffer prejudice from the Appellants' failure to include the directed verdict in his favor in their notice of appeal. See Lynn, 804 F.2d at 1481 (where the Local was served with a copy of a brief raising the issue of the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Local, and the Local filed a brief in which the issue was fully discussed, the Local had notice of the issue and was not prejudiced by the appellant's failure to include the issue in his notice of appeal). 17 We hold that Brian Meehan is the sole appellant properly before the court, and that the directed verdicts in favor of the County and Buhler are the proper subjects of the appeal.