Opinion ID: 550737
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction over the Parties and the Appeal

Text: 5 The caption of appellants' notice of appeal specifically named five of the six plaintiffs in district court. The Department has reinstated plaintiffs Johnson, Roybal and Ruscigno's disability benefits, and thus their claims are moot. Although the record does not indicate that plaintiff Rotti's benefits have been reinstated, the Department has voided his suspension order, and thus his claim is probably moot. If only Rotti's claims were involved, we would dismiss the appeal. However, the fifth named plaintiff Hite appealed her suspension order to the Board of Industrial Appeals, and the Board dismissed her claim. Thus, Hite's appeal from the Board's dismissal is not moot and we must consider the merits. 6 Plaintiff Sauceda was omitted from the notice of appeal. This omission would seem to indicate that Sauceda is not a party to this appeal. In Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988), the Supreme Court held that a party omitted from a notice of appeal was not a party to the appeal. There, the caption of the notice named one party and included the phrase et al. The body of the notice specifically named 15 of the 16 plaintiffs in the case. The Court held that the phrase et al. failed to provide notice to the courts and the opposition of Torres' intention to appeal. Id. at 318, 108 S.Ct. at 2409. 7 We have recently held that Torres does not require that the notice specifically name a party where a generic term in the body, like plaintiffs or defendants, adequately identifies the individuals appealing. National Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc. v. INS, 892 F.2d 814 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam). In Immigrants' Rights the caption named one defendant and included the term et al. The body of the notice stated that defendants appeal. We held that the use of defendants in the body coupled with the phrase et al. in the caption fairly indicated that all the defendants intended to appeal. Id. at 816-17. 8 Here, like Immigrants' Rights, the body of the notice stated that plaintiffs, and each of them, hereby appeal. However, unlike Immigrants' Rights and Torres, the caption here specifically named five of the six plaintiffs in the case, 1 but did not include the phrase et al. In this context, we cannot say that the notice fairly indicates an intention to appeal by parties not specifically named in the caption. We think the more reasonable interpretation is that plaintiffs refers only to the five named plaintiffs in the caption. Cf. Immigrants' Rights, 892 F.2d at 817 ([I]f only some defendants desired to appeal, those defendants could have identified themselves individually.) We hold, therefore, that Sauceda is not a party to this appeal. 9 The Department argues that appellants' federal suit is barred by the state's eleventh amendment immunity. To the extent that appellants' suit seeks damages and injunctive relief against a state agency, it is barred by the eleventh amendment. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978) (per curiam). The eleventh amendment also bars appellants from seeking retrospective relief such as reinstatement of past benefits from state officials, see Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 668, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1358, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974), but it does not bar appellants from seeking prospective injunctive relief against the named Department officials, see V.O. Motors v. California State Board of Equalization, 691 F.2d 871, 872 (9th Cir.1982).