Opinion ID: 1998438
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: National Union's Appeal

Text: The first issue the Court must address is whether National Union is a proper appellant. The plaintiff contends that National Union is not appropriately before the Court because it did not file a notice of appeal and was not named in Dacomed's notice of appeal. According to plaintiff, the reference in the notice of appeal to Dacomed Corp., et al was insufficient as a matter of law to preserve National Union's appellate rights. The plaintiff cites the specificity requirement in Article I, Rule 3(c) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure in support of his argument. Rule 3(c) provides in relevant part: The notice of appeal shall specify the party or parties taking the appeal and shall designate the judgment, order or decree or part thereof appealed from. We note that this language is similar to the language of Rule 3(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure as it existed before it was amended in February 1994. [9] This Court consistently has looked to the interpretation of comparable federal rules in interpreting our rules of procedure. See, e.g., Crowe Countryside Realty Associates, Co., LLC v. Novare Engineers, Inc., 891 A.2d 838, 840 (R.I.2006) (This [C]ourt has stated previously that where the federal rule and our state rule of procedure are substantially similar, we will look to the federal courts for guidance or interpretation of our own rule.) (quoting Smith v. Johns-Manville Corp., 489 A.2d 336, 339 (R.I.1985)). Consequently, we shall seek guidance from the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of Federal Rule 3(c) before its language was changed significantly by amendment. In Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 314, 318, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988), the United States Supreme Court construed the language of Federal Rule 3(c) to require that each party to an appeal be named specifically in the notice of appeal. The petitioner in Torres was one of sixteen plaintiffs who intervened in an employment discrimination suit against the defendant. The District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed their complaint based on Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim. The case was appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. Bonilla v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 697 F.2d 1297, 1304 (9th Cir.1982). However, the notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit had, because of a clerical error, omitted petitioner's name. On remand, defendant moved for and was granted summary judgment against petitioner because petitioner was not named in the notice of appeal. The Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed. Martinez v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 807 F.2d 178 (9th Cir.1986). Before the United States Supreme Court, the petitioner in Torres argued that, although not specifically named in the notice of appeal, the use of the et al designation in the original notice of appeal was sufficient to indicate his intention to appeal. The Supreme Court concluded however, that the petitioner failed to comply with the specificity requirement of Rule 3(c), even liberally construed. Torres, 487 U.S. at 317, 108 S.Ct. 2405. The Court noted: The purpose of the specificity requirement of Rule 3(c) is to provide notice both to the opposition and to the court of the identity of the appellant or appellants. The use of the phrase `et al.,' which literally means `and others,' utterly fails to provide such notice to either intended recipient. Torres, 487 U.S. at 318, 108 S.Ct. 2405. Justice Marshall, writing for the Court in Torres, based the decision on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the Court of Appeals was correct that it never had jurisdiction over petitioner's appeal. Id. at 317, 108 S.Ct. 2405. As noted, National Union was not named in the notice of appeal and only one filing fee initially was paid to this Court. In preliminary briefings submitted to this Court, plaintiff argued against National Union's appellate participation for failing to perfect an appeal. It was then that defendants moved for an enlargement of time in which to tender the filing fee. We granted that motion, but reserved judgment on the effect, if any, of the failure to have named National Union as an appellant in the case. We shall proceed now to address this issue. We are of the opinion that National Union's appeal is not appropriately before this Court. All rules of appellate procedure may be characterized as having technical aspects. Munro v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 423 A.2d 832, 833 (R.I.1980) (concluding that Article I, Rule 10(e) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure was designed to allow the correction or modification of the record in an appeal that was properly claimed and was not a device for permitting an appeal to be taken out of time). The technical aspect of Rule 3(c) as it applies to this case is that parties to an appeal are to be named specifically in the notice of appeal. The defendants did not satisfy this requirement. We have been similarly exigent in the past with respect to the clear requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See, e.g., Illas v. Przybyla, 850 A.2d 937, 943 (R.I.2004) (concluding that appellant's wife and children failed to perfect their appeal because only one notice of appeal had been filed and only one filing fee was paid; and further indicating that, although their claims were derivative of appellant's claim, they constituted separately appealable issues); Wolf v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 697 A.2d 1082, 1085 n. 1 (R.I.1997) (concluding that, simply because an appeal was prosecuted by one attorney on behalf of multiple parties does not dictate the number of filing fees that must be paid or the number of notices of appeal that must be filed); Martin v. Lilly, 505 A.2d 1156, 1159-60 (R.I.1986) (rejecting defendant's contention that his single notice of appeal was sufficient to perfect an appeal in two cases that had been consolidated for trial in Superior Court and declaring that Rule 3(c) required defendant to file two notices of appeal). We recognize that using the et al designation may be an acceptable practice in Superior Court. We note, however, that Rule 3(c) is markedly different from its counterpart, Rule 10(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 10(a) states: In the complaint the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties, but in other pleadings it is sufficient to state the name of the first party on each side with an appropriate indication of other parties. Rule 3(c) makes no similar concession in its explicit requirement of specificity, and we certainly do not consider the notice of appeal to fall under the other pleadings category identified in Rule 10(a). The defendants have asked this Court to excuse the absence of specificity in their notice of appeal. We decline to do so. Simply stated, Rule 3(c) requires that the notice of appeal shall specify the party or parties taking the appeal. Our interpretation of this provision is consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Federal Rule 3(c) in Torres. Although Federal Rule 3(c) was amended as a result of the Supreme Court's holding in Torres, Rhode Island Rule 3(c) has not been amended. Accordingly, National Union's appeal is not appropriately before this Court. This conclusion, however, does not end our analysis. The plaintiff has appealed from the grant of a new trial on damages. The trial justice granted a remittitur based on his finding that the jury award was excessive. He concluded that the verdict was a stealth punitive damage award that was unrelated to the damage proven by Mr. Lennon as a result of the malfunctioning penile prosthesis. He also found that there was insufficient evidence to support the award and that the amount shocked his conscience. He granted a new trial on damages unless plaintiff agreed to a reduced damage award of $400,000. The plaintiff attempted to accept the remittitur on the condition that defendants waive their right to appeal to this Court. The defendants refused to agree to this qualified acceptance and the trial justice ordered a new trial on damages. Before this Court, plaintiff argues the trial justice abused his discretion in reducing the damage award because he overlooked and misconceived the evidence of pain and suffering. Alternatively, should this Court affirm the grant of a remittitur, plaintiff requests an opportunity to comply with the remittitur mandate. A trial justice can conditionally correct and modify a jury award that is found to be excessive through the use of remittitur. Cotrona v. Johnson & Wales College, 501 A.2d 728, 733 (R.I.1985). The devices of remittitur and additur are designed to avoid the costs and delays that arise from relitigation of the same issues, while providing a just result for the litigants. Id. A remittitur is available only when the jury award clearly appears to be excessive or is found to be the result of the jury's passion and prejudice. Mazzaroppi v. Tocco, 533 A.2d 203, 206 (R.I.1987) (citing Zarrella v. Robinson, 460 A.2d 415, 418-19 (R.I.1983)). Our review of the record in this case demonstrates that, in reducing the damage award, the trial justice carefully considered the evidence in this case in light of his charge to the jury and did not overlook or misconceive relevant evidence. Consequently, we decline to set aside his grant of a remittitur. It is our view, however, that plaintiff should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to accept the reduced judgment. See DeLeo v. Anthony A. Nunes, Inc., 546 A.2d 1344, 1348 (R.I.1988) (denying plaintiffs' appeal from reduced damage award, but then allowing them to accept or reject remittitur mandate). Accordingly, National Union's appeal is dismissed and the case is remanded to the Superior Court. Upon remand, Lennon will be afforded a twenty day period within which he may accept or reject the remittitur. Should plaintiff fail to accept the remittitur, the judgment ordering a new trial as to damages is affirmed.