Opinion ID: 1436492
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Rulings Preserved for Appeal

Text: Pointing out that Ms. Flax did not list in her Notice of Appeal any of the trial court's pre-December 14, 2005 rulings, the Lawyers argue that she failed to preserve for appeal any of her allegations of error with respect to those rulings. The Lawyers cite D.C.App. R. 3(c) (The notice of appeal must . . . designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed), and Perry v. Sera, 623 A.2d 1210, 1215 (D.C.1993) (An appellant should take pains to be precise in this regard [ i.e., noting an appeal]. . . . [I]t may be that in litigation two or more potentially appealable orders will be entered. In such a case, the notice of appeal serves to indicate the one in fact appealed.) (citation omitted); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ramos, 782 A.2d 280, 287 n. 7 (D.C.2001). It is correct that [i]f an appellant . . . chooses to designate specific determinations in his notice of appealrather than simply appealing from the entire judgmentonly the specified issues may be raised on appeal. McLaurin v. Fischer, 768 F.2d 98, 102 (6th Cir.1985). But, as the foregoing quotation indicates, an appellant may simply appeal [] from the entire judgment. Id. It is well-settled in jurisprudence interpreting the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (including FRAP 3(c), the federal counterpart to D.C.App. R. 3(c)), that an appeal of a final judgment draws into question all prior non-final rulings and orders. Nat'l Ecological Found. v. Alexander, 496 F.3d 466, 476 (6th Cir.2007), quoting McLaurin, 768 F.2d at 101; see also Air Safety v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, 94 F.3d 1, 6 n. 12 (1st Cir.1996). We now clarify that this is the rule in our jurisdiction as well. Ms. Flax appealed from the order [singular] of this court entered on the 14 day of December, 2005. This statement is ambiguous in that it fails to specify whether she was appealing from the final judgment order or from the order denying her motion to amend, both dated December 14, 2005. Given our obligation to construe pro se rulings liberally, see Elmore v. Stevens, 824 A.2d 44, 46 (D.C.2003), we accept Ms. Flax's representation that she appealed the court's final judgment, not merely a ruling merged into that judgment. Accordingly, her notice of appeal drew into question all of the trial court's prior non-final rulings and orders, and they are properly before us.