968 F.2d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 1992), 91-7136, Adkins v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

Docket Nº:91-7136.
Citation:968 F.2d 1317
Party Name:Donald Leroy ADKINS, et al., Appellants, v. SAFEWAY STORES, INC. and Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Union Local No. 246, an Affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Appellees.
Case Date:July 10, 1992
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Page 1317

968 F.2d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

Donald Leroy ADKINS, et al., Appellants,

v.

SAFEWAY STORES, INC. and Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees

Union Local No. 246, an Affiliate of the

International Brotherhood of Teamsters,

Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and

Helpers of America, Appellees.

No. 91-7136.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

July 10, 1992

Page 1318

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 16, 1992.

Arnold B. Podgorsky and Barry S. Spector, Washington, D.C., were on the opposition to the motions to dismiss, for appellants.

Richard C. Hotvedt, Washington, D.C., was on the motion to dismiss, for appellee Safeway, Inc.

John R. Mooney and Marilyn L. Baker, Washington, D.C., were on the motion to dismiss, for appellee Local No. 246.

Before WALD, D.H. GINSBURG, and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge D.H. GINSBURG.

D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judge:

Donald Adkins and twelve other dairy truck drivers brought this suit against Safeway, Inc. and the Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Union Local No. 246, alleging that the collective bargaining agreement between Safeway and the Union discriminates against them on the basis of age. The district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, and counsel for the drivers filed a notice of appeal. The notice was filed on behalf of "Donald Leroy Adkins, et al., Plaintiffs" and stated that the "Plaintiffs respectfully notice their appeal." Nowhere in the notice were the other drivers specifically identified as appellants.

The appellees move to dismiss the appeal as to all plaintiffs on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction because the notice fails to identify the specific individuals seeking to appeal, as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c). We resolve today only the question whether this court has jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the unnamed drivers; the question of our jurisdiction to consider the appeal of Adkins, whose name appears in the caption of the notice of appeal, has been referred to another panel, as have the merits of his appeal.

Rule 3(c) requires that a notice of appeal "specify the party or parties taking the appeal." In Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988), the notice of appeal identified as appellants fifteen of the sixteen...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP