Document: 487 U.S. 312 108 S.Ct. 2405 101 L.Ed.2d 285 Jose TORRES, Petitionerv.OAKLAND SCAVENGER COMPANY et al. No. 86-1845. Argued Feb. 23, 1988. Decided June 24, Syllabus Petitioner is one of 16 plaintiffs whose complaint seeking intervention in an employment discrimination action against respondent Oakland Scavenger Co. (hereafter respondent) was dismissed by the District Court. On remand following Court Appeals' reversal dismissal, granted summary judgment petitioner on ground that he had not been named notice appeal to Appeals, albeit inadvertently. The Appeals affirmed, ruling exclusion from constituted a jurisdictional bar. Held: Failure file accordance with Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 3(c)'s requirement "specify party or parties taking appeal" presents bar appeal. Rule's caveat "shall be for [the notice's] informality form title" does aid petitioner, since his constitutes failure rather than excusable informality. Nor can find relief 2's grant broad equitable discretion courts appeals, "for good cause shown," "suspend requirements . any [Rule]," 26(b) contains exception forbidding "enlarg[ing]" 4's mandatory time limits filing notice, which would vitiated if could exercise jurisdiction over notice. This reading supported Advisory Committee's Note 3, and contravene Foman v. Davis, 371 178, 83 227, 9 222, since, although under decision court may construe Rules liberally ignore "mere technicalities" determining compliance, it waive 3 4, even "good shown." Here, never filed functional equivalent appeal, implication filed, did seek leave amend within limit set 4. use "et al." insufficient notify appellant allow them determine certitude whether should bound adverse held liable costs sanctions. Pp. 314-318. 807 F.2d 178 (CA9 1986) affirmed. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. SCALIA, concurring judgment, post, p. ---. BRENNAN, dissenting opinion, B.V. Yturbide, San Francisco, Cal., petitioner. Stephen McKae, Oakland, respondents. Justice MARSHALL 1 case question federal appellate has who specified 3(c). 2 * Torres intervened suit after receiving pursuant settlement agreement between original plaintiffs. In their complaint, intervenors purported proceed only own behalf, but also behalf all persons similarly situated. August 31, 1981, Northern California Civil 12(b)(6) state claim warranting relief. 4 Record, Doc. 87. A class certified at dismissal. September 29, Ninth Circuit. reversed Court's dismissal remanded further proceedings. Bonilla Co., 697 1297 (1982). Both order omitted petitioner's name. It undisputed omission due clerical error part secretary employed attorney. remand, moved partial prior final as virtue respondent's motion. App. Pet. Cert. B-1, Civ. Action C 75-0060 CAL (ND Oct. 30, 1985). reported (1986), holding "[u]nless have him." A-4, citing Farley Transportation Santa Fe Trail 778 1365, 1368 5 We certiorari resolve conflict Circuits specificity 3(c) appeal.1 484 894, 225, 98 184 (1987). now affirm. II 6 provides pertinent specify appeal." amended 1979 add title instant case. name more "informality"; 7 More broadly, gives appeals power, provisions these rules particular application its motion." 26(b), however, certain exceptions this discretion. forbids "enlarge" are prescribed believe nature contained were permitted Permitting unnamed passed permitting extend Because do latter we hold likewise withhold former. 8 support our view Committee 3: "Rule combine require clerk district timely 'mandatory jurisdictional,' United States Robinson, [361 220, 224, 80 282, 285, 259 (1960) ], compliance those utmost importance." 28 U.S.C.App., 467. 10 admonition makes no distinction among various 4; treats two single threshold. "dispense literal cases cannot fairly exacted," ibid., contrary. examples cited make clear referring generally kinds later addressed amendment 3(c), excuses "informality appeal.2 imperfect substantial technical same waiving altogether Our conclusion viewed nature, determinative, "of weight" construction Rule. Mississippi Publishing Corp. Murphree, 326 438, 444, 66 242, 245-246, 90 L.Ed. 185 (1946). 11 222 (1962), compel contrary construction. Foman, separate provision requiring "designate thereof appealed from." plaintiff dismissed. She first motions vacate her complaint. While pending, she When denied motions, second denial. concluded premature because Foman's pending failed designate underlying from. court's refusal hear merits treated "an effective, inept, attempt sought vacated." Id., 181, S.Ct., 229. 12 address issue nature; rather, simply light circumstances, complied with. dispute important principle stands—that procedure construed stand way consideration merits. Ibid. Thus, litigant files papers fashion technically variance letter procedural rule, nonetheless rule litigant's what requires. See, e.g., Houston Lack, 266, 2379, 245 (1988) (delivery pro se prisoner prison authorities mailing "filing" meaning 4). But they with, shown" 2, finds met.3 13 Applying principles case, comply construed. appeal; otherwise designated, however inartfully, 15 other intervenors. correct 14 urges sufficient indicate intention agree. purpose provide both opposition identity appellants. phrase al.," literally means "and others," utterly fails such either intended recipient. vague designation appellee unable losing met some fair specific individual entity recognize construing prerequisite leads harsh result convinced harshness "imposed legislature judicial process." Schiavone Fortune, 477 21, 106 2385, 91 18 (1986) (construing 15(c) implacable fashion). 17 so ordered. judgment. 19 I agree forth produce it. If fact "liberally construed," " 'mere technicalities' merits," "the requires," ante, 316, seem me caption listing then adding enough suggest appellants can, viewed," deemed create ambiguity destroy effect putting 20 deciding prescription ignoring useful guide application. By definition technicalities; sanction always prevents where justice lies theory securing orderly process enables done totality cases. seems me, moreover, interpret neither nor stingily, only, best according apparent intent. Where intent leeway, permissive right one; strict, wrong. very prescribe "construed secure just, speedy, inexpensive determination every action." Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 1. 21 here requires appeal," Proc. suggests just residual Moreover, thought necessary entail strict contemplated. concur today's therefore, essentially reasons dissented (1988), appropriately cites reasoning present my stands stark contrast conclusion. 22 dissenting. 23 "The Rules," previously observed, "reject approach pleading game skill misstep counsel decisive outcome accept facilitate proper merits." 181-182, 229-230, (1962). Although today pays lip-service spirit liberality animating Rules, nevertheless holds below lacked lawyer's inadvertently him coplaintiffs. Eschewing inquiry into suffered prejudice it, concludes "misstep counsel" decides party-specification review. Nothing compels wholly odds liberal policies well them. 24 As notes, permits upon showing cause, case," except provided 26(b). turn, enlarge established act, "time out face, then, together confer excuse save limitations Notably, mentions falling outside purview power. 25 face express policy favoring timeliness partyspecification must jurisdictional, "mandatory Ante, 315. unsupported assertion, assume answer here, i.e., "[t]he 314. If, hand, assume, several Courts have, effectively party's join prejudicial none, see, Harrison States, 715 1311, 1312-1313 (CA8 1983); Williams Frey, 551 932, 934, n. (CA3 1977), remain inviolate. itself acknowledges "litigant's [may be] requires." 317. obvious, initial given act satisfies test "functional equivalence" depends necessity amending hence enlarging arise. 26 purports Notes, explain "combine "[b]ecause Arguing differentiate "a threshold." lends reaches today. comment says "timely filing" jurisdictional; significantly, stopped short describing entirety. context intend incorporate reference discussed sentence comment. 3(a) taken allowed 4." thus tracked nearly word Note—and enumerated combines "that 27 broader Note, Rule, flatly inconsistent supra, judgment-designation jurisdictional. That requirement, immediately precedes provision, states order, forgave mere noncompliance see lower expressly stated made review sought, void. 292 85, 87 (CA1 1961). affirmed disposition lack designated less technicality" absence case: precisely information required "treated [second of] when ineffective notices read together, "petitioner's manifest." U.S., 229-230 (emphasis added). arguing counsel's presentation case—in issues common plaintiffs, Court—and inclusion manifest. dismisses contention asserting "petitioner 3(c)"; "file appeal"; "never intervenors." These statements, conclusional, distinguish involved Foman. 29 1979, "[a]n shall accompanying explained "so long function paper indicating substance with." 467 course, opposing being taken, Cobb Lewis, 488 41, 45 (CA5 1974) (cited approval 3), turn ensures appellees prejudiced requisite commitment assuming obligations particularly obligation pay fees might ultimately assess. factual inquiries entirely capable undertaking, better serve purposes supposedly advanced bright-line announces today.* 30 After ruling, will able capitalize errors matter how meritorious appellant's claims obvious review, powerless most manifest resulting injustices. identifies supporting, let alone requiring, patently authorization forgive forgiveness shown. Instead, fiat thereby converting essence inflexible convenience. demonstrate apprise respondents coplaintiffs, reverse inquiry. 31 Accordingly, dissent. Compare 1368-1370 1985) (failure bar); Covington Allsbrook, 636 63, 64 (CA4 1980) (same); Life Time Doors, Inc. Walled Lake Door 505 1165, 1168 (CA6 (same), Ayres Sears, Roebuck & 789 1173, 1177 (appeal limited instances); 1983) 1977) (same). For example, approvingly judge suffice Riffle 299 802 1962), constitute receipt court, Halfen 324 52 (CA10 1963). addition urging advances arguments position, merit. First, argues apply "harmless error" analysis defects argument misunderstands requirement: hurdle "harmless" waived court. Second, permit cure defect unfairly absent members, action, obtain barred. granting explicitly left open Mr. participate litigation member class, properly certified." B-4. greater protection litigants adopted like tests predictable. advantage, marginal significance inasmuch few found satisfied omitted, acknowledged exceptional finding possible. See 1313 ("[T]his rare appropriate FRAP 3"); ("Under govern"). Certainly responsible lawyer intentionally omit reliance

Category: 8