Torres v.

Oakland Scavenger Company

487 U.S. 312

TIMELINE OF EVENTS:

District Court for the Northern District of

AUGUST 31, 1981 California dismissed the complaint for failure
to state a claim warranting relief
A Notice of appeal was filed in the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which Court
SEPTEMEBER 29, 1981
reversed the dismissal and remanded the
case for further proceedings

Issue: Whether a Federal Appellate Court has jurisdiction over a party who was not
specified in the notice of appeal in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 3(c).

On remand, OAKLAND SCAVENGER COMPANY moved for a partial summary judgment on the
ground that the prior judgment of dismissal was final as to TORRES by virtue of his failure to
appeal. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed
judgment order holding that “unless a party is named in the Notice of Appeal, the appellate
court does not have jurisdiction over him.” See, Farley Transportation Co. v. Santa Fe Trail
Transportation Co., 778 F.2d 1365.

CERTIORARI was granted to resolve ISSUE. Judgment Affirmed. The Court of Appeals could
not waive jurisdictional requirement of naming parties to appeal, even for good cause shown,
and the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction over appeal of litigant who was not
specified in NOA due to clerical error on part of secretary employed by litigant’s attorney. *
“Good Cause Shown” gives courts of appeals the power to suspend the requirements or
provisions of any of these rules in a particular case on application of a party or on its own
motion. The exception forbids a court to enlarge the time limits for filing a notice of appeal.

Holding: Failure to file a NOTICE OF APPEAL in accordance with Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedures 3(c)’s requirement that the notice “specify the party or parties taking the appeal”
presents a jurisdictional bar to the appeal.

Reasoning: The exception to Notice of Appeal found in FRAP 3(c), is that an appeal “shall not
be dismissed for informality of form or title of the Notice to Appeal.” This exception refers to
document format. This does not aid TORRES in this case. The failure to name a party in a
NOA is more than excusable “informality”. The use of “et all” which literally means “and
others” in the caption where parties are listed on a Complaint, was not sufficient to indicate
TORRES’ intention to appeal. The use of the phrase “et al.,” utterly fails to provide such
notice to either intended party.

Courts
Nature, Extent, and Exercise of Jurisdiction in General
Loss or Divestitute of

Jurisdiction

Rule: Courts may not exercise jurisdiction over unnamed parties after time for filing of
appeal has passed (F.R.A.P. Rules 4, 26(b), 28 U.S.C.A.)

Courts
Establishment, Organization, and Procedure
Rules of Court and Conduct of

Business
Operation and Effect of Rules
Construction and Application of Rules in General

Rule: If litigant files papers in fashion that is technically at variance with letter of
procedural rule, court may nonetheless find litigant has complied with rule if litigant’s action
is functional equivalent of what rule requires (F.R.A.P. Rule 2, 28 U.S.C.A.)

Federal Courts
Courts of Appeals
Proceedings for Transfer of Case
Notice, Writ of
Error or Citation
Time for Filing in General

Rule: Although courts may construe Rules of Appellate Procedure liberally in

determining whether they have been complied with, it may not waive jurisdictional
requirements of rules requiring that notice of appeal be filed with clerk of district court within
the time prescribed for taking of appeal, even for good cause shown, if it finds that
jurisdictional requirements have not been met. (F.R.A.P. Rules 2-4, 28 U.S.C.A)

Federal Courts
Courts of Appeals
Scope, Standards, and Extent
Harmless Error

Particular Errors as Harmless or Prejudicial

Rule: Litigant’s failure to clear jurisdictional hurdle can never be “harmless” or waived
by the court. (F.R.A.P. Rule 2, 28 U.S.C.A.)

Federal Courts
Courts of Appeals
Proceedings for Transfer of Case
Notice, Writ of
Error or Citation
Requisites and Sufficiency; Defects

Rule: Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction over litigant in purported class action due
to omission of litigant’s name in notice of appeal as result of clerical error on part of secretary
employed by litigant’s attorney (F.R.A.P. Rules 2-4, 3(c), 28 U.S.C.A.).

Federal Courts
Courts of Appeals
Proceeding for Transfer of Case
Notice, Writ of Error
or Citation
Requisites and Sufficiency; Defects

Rule: Specificity requirement of rule requiring naming of parties in notice of appeal is

met only by some designation that gives fair notice of specific individual or entity seeking to
appeal (F.R.A.P. Rule 3(c), 28 U.S.C.A.).