Milanovich v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A., 90-7155
| Citation | 938 F.2d 297 |
| Decision Date | 12 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-7155,90-7155 |
| Parties | , 20 Fed.R.Serv.3d 778 Gregory MILANOVICH, et al., Appellants, v. COSTA CROCIERE, S.p.A., et al. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Allen Hutter, Washington, D.C., was on the motion to dismiss for appellants.
Mitchell Stabbe, Washington, D.C., Daniel S. Pearson and George Mencio, Jr., Miami, Fla., were on the opposition to the motion to dismiss, for appellees.
Before WALD, SILBERMAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
On Motion to Dismiss
Gregory and Marjorie Milanovich filed a personal injury action in district court against Costa Crociere, S.p.A., and Costa Cruises, Inc. The district court 747 F.Supp. 1, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs appealed. The notice of appeal was captioned "Gregory Milanovich, et ux.," and stated that "Plaintiffs hereby appeal the judgment of the court below." Nowhere in the notice was Marjorie Koch-Milanovich, Gregory Milanovich's wife, specifically identified by name as an appellant. Defendants/appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal against Marjorie Milanovich pursuant to Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988).
In Torres a notice of appeal from a judgment of dismissal listed the names of fifteen out of sixteen plaintiffs as parties to the appeal but did not list plaintiff Jose Torres. Mr. Torres argued that the use of the term "et al." was enough to indicate his intention to appeal. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the use of the term "et al." did not comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) because it failed to provide fair notice of the specific individual seeking to appeal. Id. at 318, 108 S.Ct. at 2409.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkins v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
...action is the functional equivalent of what the rule requires." Id. at 316–17, 108 S.Ct. 2405 ; see also Milanovich v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A. , 938 F.2d 297, 298 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (holding that a caption styled "Gregory Milonovich, et ux. " satisfied Appellate Rule 3(c) because "et ux. " was......
-
Mallas v. U.S.
...1180, 117 L.Ed.2d 424 (1992); Baylis v. Marriott Corp., 906 F.2d 874, 876-77 (2d Cir.1990); see also Milanovich v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A., 938 F.2d 297, 298 (D.C.Cir.1991) (per curiam ) (use of "et ux." and plural "Plaintiffs" held sufficient where only plaintiffs below were named plaintiff......
-
Barbour v. Merrill, 93-7223
...to Mark Merrill and Medlantic, the two defendants before the district court at the time of the judgment. See Milanovich v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A., 938 F.2d 297, 298 (D.C.Cir.1991). We are equally confident that despite appellate counsel's entry of an appearance on behalf of "Medlantic Healt......
-
Adkins v. Safeway, Inc.
...and thus bound by an adverse judgment. See 487 U.S. at 318, 108 S.Ct. at 2409. Our approach is consonant with Milanovich v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A., 938 F.2d 297 (D.C.Cir.1991), holding that the caption "Gregory Milanovich et ux." on a notice of appeal filed on behalf of "plaintiffs" preserv......