UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT


ELKINS CARMEN

v.

STB


98-1466a

D.C. Cir. 1999


*	*	*


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


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


So ordered.