938 F.2d 297 (D.C. Cir. 1991), 90-7155, Milanovich v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A.

Docket Nº:90-7155.
Citation:938 F.2d 297
Party Name:Gregory MILANOVICH, et al., Appellants, v. COSTA CROCIERE, S.p.A., et al.
Case Date:July 12, 1991
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Page 297

938 F.2d 297 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

Gregory MILANOVICH, et al., Appellants,


COSTA CROCIERE, S.p.A., et al.

No. 90-7155.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

July 12, 1991

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

Page 298

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