Opinion ID: 730904
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Attorneys' Claim

Text: 7 The Jenkinses' attorneys, from the law firm of Clements & Ducharme, argue that the district court erred in ordering them to pay fees to depose GM's experts, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(B)(4)(C). However, the attorneys failed to file a notice of appeal on their own behalf. The only notice of appeal that references the January 9, 1996 decision of the district court on GM's motion for expert costs and fees lists Mark A. and Marion F. Jenkins as the parties seeking appeal, and in no way suggests that the attorneys intend to appeal on their own behalf. Accordingly, we dismiss the attorneys' appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed.R.App.P. 3(c) (A notice of appeal must specify the party or parties taking the appeal by naming each appellant in either the caption or the body of the notice of appeal.... An appeal will not be dismissed ... for failure to name a party whose intent to appeal is otherwise clear from the notice.); Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694, 703 (2d Cir.1994) ( 'The failure to name a party in a notice of appeal is more than excusable informality; it constitutes a failure of that party to appeal,' defeating appellate jurisdiction. (quoting Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 314 (1988))). 8 Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the attorneys' appeal, we do not address their claim on the merits.