GREGORY MILANOVICH, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
COSTA CROCIERE, S.P.A., ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the notice of appeal sufficiently identified the wife as an appellant, denying the motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs appealed a summary judgment, but the notice of appeal named only the husband, using "et ux." to refer to his wife. Defendants moved to dism…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Appeal Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
On Motion to Dismiss
PER CURIAM:
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.
“Et ux.” is quite a different matter. Whereas “et al.” means “and others” and could refer to an entire class of unnamed individuals or just to some members of that class, “et ux.” is an abbreviation for et uxor, which means “and wife”. As used after Gregory Milanovich’s name in the caption of the notice, it could refer only to his wife. Moreover, the body of the notice states that “Plaintiffs hereby appeal.” Because there were only two plaintiffs in this case, “Plaintiffs” can refer only to Gregory and Marjorie Milanovich. Accordingly, the notice of appeal provides fair notice of the specific individuals seeking to appeal, and the motion to dismiss is
Denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adkins v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 968 F.2d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
-
Adkins v. Safeway, Inc., 985 F.2d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
-
Mallas v. Jones, Jr., 993 F.2d 1111 (4th Cir. 1993)
Authorities Cited
- Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1988)