Another Dated Discussion of Rule 3(c)


March 29, 2024
By Bryan Lammon

In T.A. ex rel. Harmandjian v. County of Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit determined that a notice of appeal designating the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion was sufficient to appeal the underlying judgment.

The decision was correct. But the discussion was entirely off point. Like several courts before it, the Ninth Circuit failed to recognize that Rule 3(c) was amended in 2021. And those amendments expressly address the situation in which a party designates only a post-judgment motion.

The Notice in T.A.

The district court in T.A. dismissed the plaintiff’s claims and then denied the plaintiff’s subsequent motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The plaintiff then appealed. And in that notice of appeal, the plaintiff designated only the denial of her Rule 60(b) motion.

On appeal, the defendant argued that this designation limited the scope of appeal to the Rule 60(b) denial. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) requires that a notice of appeal designate (among other things) the order or judgment being appealed. The defendant in T.A. thought that by specifying only the Rule 60(b) denial—and not the underlying judgment—the plaintiff had failed to appeal the latter decision.

Inferring an Intent to Appeal

The Ninth Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument and concluded that it could review both the Rule 60(b) denial and the underlying judgment.

The Ninth Circuit noted that Rule 3(c)(1)(B) requires that a notice designate the appealed order or judgment. But “a mistake in designating the judgment appealed from should not bar appeal as long as the intent to appeal a specific judgment can be fairly inferred and the appellee is not prejudiced or misled by the mistake.” And given that the Rule 60(b) motion sought reconsideration of the underlying judgment, the Ninth Circuit determined that the intent to appeal the underlying judgment could be fairly inferred. The court added that reviewing the underlying judgment did not prejudice the defendant.

A Dated Discussion of Order Designation

This was the correct outcome. But this discussion is entirely outdated.

Until a few years ago, several courts of appeals held that designating one order in a notice of appeal limited the scope of appellate review to the designated order. The thought was that by designating some orders, the appellant intended not to appeal any others. Expressio unius and all that.

As of December 2021, however, amendments to Rule 3(c) abrogated this practice. Now, a “notice of appeal encompasses all orders that, for purposes of appeal, merge into the designated judgment or appealable order. It is not necessary to designate those orders in the notice of appeal.” If litigants want to limit the scope of an appeal, they must expressly state as much in their notice.

The amended Rule 3(c) also specifically addresses the situation in T.A. Rule 3(c)(5) says that “a notice of appeal encompasses the final judgment . . . if the notice designates . . . an order described in Rule 4(a)(4)(A).” A Rule 60 motion is one of the motions listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A). So under Rule 3(c)(5), the plaintiff’s notice in T.A. was sufficient to appeal the underlying judgment. That means the defendant’s argument in T.A. did not merely rely on abrogated law. It was directly contrary to the text of the amended Rule 3(c).

The amendments to Rule 3(c) took effect in December 2021. Initially, several courts failed to recognize the amendments and continued applying abrogated circuit law. Things have gotten better. But as T.A. illustrates, we’re still not where we should be.

T.A. ex rel. Harmandjian v. County of Los Angeles, 2024 WL 1300003 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2024), available at the Ninth Circuit and Westlaw

Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.

Learn More Contact

Related Posts


In Blackwell v. Nocerini, the Sixth Circuit held that a motion to reconsider reset the time to take a qualified-immunity appeal. The denial of immunity was immediately appealable and thus a “judgment” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So a motion to reconsider that denial was effectively a motion under Federal Rule of Civil […]

Continue reading....

In Gelin v. Baltimore County, the Fourth Circuit held that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) applies to appealable interlocutory orders. So a motion to reconsider such an order resets the time to appeal. The court added that a motion can effectively be one seeking reconsideration even though the motion does not cite to Federal […]

Continue reading....

In Christmas v. Hooper, the Fifth Circuit held that the prison-mailbox rule applies to notices of appeal mistakenly sent to a court of appeals. In doing so, the court had to resolve a tension between two portions of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. Rule 4(c)(1) says that an imprisoned appellant’s notice of appeal is […]

Continue reading....

In Malek v. Feigenbaum, the Second Circuit reiterated its rule that a post-judgment motion must be timely filed—not merely served—to reset the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4). The court went on to hold that although Rule 4 is a claims-processing rule, it is a mandatory one that is not subject […]

Continue reading....

Disclosure: I filed an amicus brief in support of rehearing in this appeal. In last summer’s Parrish v. United States, a divided Fourth Circuit panel held that when a notice of appeal is treated as a motion to reopen the appeal period under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6), the would-be appellant must file a […]

Continue reading....

Recent Posts


I’m thrilled to announce the creation of Final Decisions PLLC, an appellate boutique and consultancy focused on appellate jurisdiction. Through it, I hope to partner with lawyers facing complex appellate-jurisdiction issues. Almost six years ago, I started the Final Decisions blog as a way to keep on top of developments in the world of appellate […]

Continue reading....

In New Albany Main Street Properties v. Watco Companies, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that it could not review a decision granting leave to amend as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The leave-to-amend decision was not itself immediately appealable. Nor could it tag along with the denial of immunity (which technically involved qualified immunity under […]

Continue reading....

In Ashley v. Clay County, the Fifth Circuit held that a municipal defendant could appeal a district court’s refusal to resolve an immunity defense despite the district court’s ordering arbitration.

Continue reading....

Courts sometimes suggest that would-be appellants must establish appellate standing by showing that the appealed decision injured the would-be appellant. When the appealing party cannot show this injury, these courts think that they have lost Article III jurisdiction. But as a recent opinion from the D.C. Circuit’s Judge Pillard explained, that’s not quite right. Judge […]

Continue reading....

In Silverthorne Seismic, L.L.C. v. Sterling Seismic Services, Ltd., a majority of the Fifth Circuit held that a motions panel had erred in permitting a certified appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court had certified for an immediate appeal a decision on how the plaintiffs could prove reasonable-royalty damages in a trade-secret case. The […]

Continue reading....