Court Opinion

ID: 9478061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:39:10.440623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:13.159213
License: Public Domain

MIKVA, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I write separately to underscore the particularly harsh result that follows from today’s decision in this case. I agree the result is compelled by the Supreme Court’s recent interpretation of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(c) in Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 108 S.Ct. 2405 (1988); the case uniquely illustrates how tough the rule can be.
Plaintiffs’ appeal on the merits of their case will not be heard simply because their notice of appeal failed to specify all their names — even though there has been no surprise, detrimental reliance, or undue prejudice to the appellee. I cannot believe this result is consistent with the intent of the Federal Rules to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. It would appear that we are back to the bad old days of the snares and tricks that would befall an inartful pleader at the common law. The advent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as the title implies, was supposed to civilize the process and look to fairness rather than technicalities.
Unless and until Congress or the Supreme Court decrees otherwise, we must deny these litigants their right to appeal. I reluctantly concur.