Gregory Milanovich v. Costa Crociere, S.P.A.
20 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 778, 291 U.S. App. D.C. 32, 938 F.2d 297 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A notice of appeal that identifies an appellant by the name of her spouse followed by the designation "et ux." (and wife), and which refers to "Plaintiffs" appealing in a case where the husband and wife were the only two plaintiffs, provides sufficient notice to satisfy Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c).
Facts:
- Gregory Milanovich and Marjorie Koch-Milanovich are a married couple.
- They jointly filed a personal injury lawsuit against Costa Crociere, S.p.A., and Costa Cruises, Inc.
- Gregory Milanovich and Marjorie Koch-Milanovich were the only two plaintiffs in the action.
Procedural Posture:
- Gregory and Marjorie Milanovich filed a personal injury action in the U.S. District Court against Costa Crociere, S.p.A. and Costa Cruises, Inc.
- The defendants (Costa) filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- The plaintiffs (the Milanoviches) filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
- The notice of appeal was captioned "Gregory Milanovich, et ux.," and stated that "Plaintiffs hereby appeal."
- The defendants/appellees filed a motion in the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal as to Marjorie Milanovich for failure to specify her as an appellant in the notice.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a notice of appeal captioned with a husband's name followed by "et ux." and stating that "Plaintiffs" appeal, where the husband and wife were the only two plaintiffs, sufficiently identify the wife as an appellant under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A notice of appeal using "et ux." and referring to "Plaintiffs" in a two-plaintiff case provides fair notice and is sufficient to include the wife as an appellant. The court distinguished this case from Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., which held that the vague term "et al." was insufficient. Unlike "et al." ("and others"), which can refer to an indeterminate number of people, "et ux." means "and wife" and points to a specific, identifiable person. When used after Gregory Milanovich's name, it could only refer to his wife, Marjorie. Furthermore, because there were only two plaintiffs in the original case, the use of the plural "Plaintiffs" in the body of the notice could only refer to both Gregory and Marjorie Milanovich, thus providing the fair notice required by Rule 3(c).
Analysis:
This decision carves out a common-sense exception to the strict jurisdictional notice requirements for appeals established in Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. It signals that courts should not apply the rule so rigidly as to dismiss an appeal where the identity of the appellant is unambiguous from the context and specific, albeit traditional, language. The case provides a practical limit on what might otherwise be a harsh procedural trap, distinguishing between vague, open-ended terms like "et al." and precise, descriptive terms like "et ux." This clarification helps attorneys avoid procedural dismissals where intent to appeal is clear.
