The opinion
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Filed April 2, 1999
No. 98-1466
Elkins Carmen,
Petitioners
v.
Surface Transportation Board
and United States of America,
Respondents
CSX Transportation, Inc.,
Intervenor
On Motion to Dismiss
Jeffrey Stephen Berlin was on the motion to dismiss on
behalf of intervenor CSX Transportation, Inc.
Paul Joseph Harris was on the opposition on behalf of
petitioners.
Before: Wald, Sentelle, and Randolph, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.
Per Curiam: This is a petition for judicial review of an
order of the Surface Transportation Board. The petition is
filed in the name of "Elkins Carmen." CSX Transportation,
Inc., an intervenor, moves to dismiss on the ground that
petitioners failed to identify themselves, as Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 15(a) requires.
Rule 15(a) states: "The petition for review must name each
party seeking review either in the caption or in the body of
the petition. Use of such terms as 'et al.,' or 'petitioners,' or
'respondents' is not effective to name the parties." Before its
amendment in 1993, Rule 15(a)'s naming-of-petitioners re-
quirement corresponded with the one contained in Fed. R.
App. P. 3(c) for notices of appeals from judgments of district
courts. In Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312
(1988), the Supreme Court held that a notice of appeal not
naming a party taking the appeal, as Rule 3(c) required,
deprived the court of appeals of jurisdiction over the un-
named party. Responding to Torres, the 1993 amendment to
Rule 3(c) allowed appellants more leeway, see Cleveland v.
Porca Co., 38 F.3d 289, 293 (7th Cir. 1994); Fed. R. App. P.
3(c), advisory committee notes. Rule 15(a), in contrast, was
changed to clarify that each petitioner seeking judicial review
had to be specifically named. The note accompanying the
Rule 15(a) amendment stated:
Both Rule 3(c) and Rule 15(a) state that a notice of
appeal or a petition for review must name the parties
seeking appellate review. Rule 3(c), however, provides
an attorney who represents more than one party on
appeal the flexibility to describe the parties in general
terms rather than naming them individually. Rule 15(a)
does not allow that flexibility; each petitioner must be
named. A petition for review of an agency decision is
the first filing in any court and, therefore, is analogous to
a complaint in which all parties must be named.
Fed. R. App. P. 15(a), advisory committee note.
Until 1981, petitioners were employed as freight car repair-
men in Elkins, West Virginia, by Western Maryland Railway
Company, the corporate predecessor of CSX. In 1993,
prompted by CSX's application for permission to abandon the
Elkins line, petitioners (represented by a single counsel) filed
a claim for severance benefits with the National Railroad
Adjustment Board. In the claim, petitioners identified them-
selves as "Elkins Carmen" and attached a list of their individ-
ual names. The Adjustment Board denied petitioners' claim,
and in 1996, the Surface Transportation Board permitted
CSX to abandon the Elkins line.
Petitioners then filed an action for injunctive relief in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia. In the complaint and other documents filed in
that court, petitioners again called themselves "Elkins Car-
men" and referred to an attachment containing their names.
The district court dismissed the claim for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and directed the parties to submit the
issue to arbitration.
In May 1998, CSX obtained a favorable arbitration ruling.
Petitioners appealed to the Surface Transportation Board.
The Board affirmed in a decision issued July 31, 1998. Peti-
tioners then filed this instant petition for review, which refers
to them as "Elkins Carmen" and does not attach or reference
any list of the individuals involved. The petition attaches a
copy of the Surface Transportation Board's decision, but that
document also lacks any list of the individuals involved.
The petition here neither specifies any individual petitioner
by name nor does it refer to a listing of names. The "Elkins
Carmen," in opposing the motion to dismiss, tell us that it is
an "unincorporated association" of 41 individuals, previously
employed at the Elkins, West Virginia freight car shop of
CSX's predecessor, and now united together for the common
purpose of seeking severance pay and other benefits. Yet
nothing in the petition, or in the attachments to it, suggests
that Elkins Carmen is an association. There is no reference
to meetings, bylaws, members, officers, publications, dues or
property. Compare State of Georgia v. National Democratic
Party, 447 F.2d 1271, 1273 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1971). Each
document "petitioners" filed in this court, and in all other
proceedings, has used "Elkins Carmen" as a collective term, a
plural. The caption of the petition for judicial review reads
"Elkins Carmen, Petitioners." This designation is inconsis-
tent with the claim that it is a single entity.
Because the petition for judicial review does not comply
with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(a), the motion to
dismiss is granted.
So ordered.