Opinion ID: 2745714
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurisdiction and Scope of Appeal

Text: The parties dispute the scope of our jurisdiction. Collura argues that we have jurisdiction to consider all orders entered by the District Court; the AlliedBarton Appellees contend that because Collura explicitly designated only the District Court’s last two orders in his notice of appeal, we may review only those orders. We agree with Collura. Collura filed a timely notice of appeal from the District Court’s December 11 2 We dismissed that appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See Collura v. City of Phila., C.A. No. 13-3669 (3d Cir. Nov. 5, 2013). 3 denial of his timely motion for reconsideration. We thus have jurisdiction to review that order, the earlier order targeted by the Rule 59(e) motion (an order entered on November 14 (dkt. #97)), and preceding orders designated in the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) and 4(a)(4)(A). We also have jurisdiction to review “orders that are not specified in the notice of appeal where: (1) there is a connection between the specified and unspecified orders; (2) the intention to appeal the unspecified order is apparent; and (3) the opposing party is not prejudiced and has a full opportunity to brief the issues.” Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 695 n.2 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The orders here are interconnected, as will become evident from our discussion. Collura’s intention to appeal all orders is apparent, if not from the notice of appeal, at least from his opening brief.3 See id. (finding jurisdiction to review earlier order although parties only designated one order in notices of appeal because, “in their briefs it is clear that both parties are also appealing” the earlier order). And because the Defendants were on notice of Collura’s intent to appeal all orders, they are not prejudiced by our review. 3 Collura’s notice of appeal, besides listing the December 11 and November 14 orders, also states: “This notice encompasses every single prior gift/favor in the agenda that lasted 17 months.” Dkt. #101. While it is not clear from that language, we discern from some of his prior filings in the case that he refers to the District Court’s orders as “gifts” or “favors” in a misguided attempt to impugn the District Court. We do not in any way condone Collura’s pejorative writing style, but we have no doubt that AlliedBarton and the other Defendants could tell that he meant to appeal all orders entered in the District Court. 4