Rudy Flores v. Fonovisa, Inc. Guillermo Santiso Univisa Emilio Diaz Barroso

28 F.3d 105 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Rudy FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FONOVISA, INC.; Guillermo Santiso; Univisa; Emilio Diaz Barroso, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-55042. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 8, 1994. * Decided July 13, 1994. Before: FLETCHER, CANBY, and HALL, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Rudy Flores appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his antitrust, copyright, and trademark action. Because the court erred by not providing Flores with notice and an opportunity to respond, we reverse and remand. I. 3 Although Flores' notice of appeal failed to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) because it did not "name the court to which the appeal is taken," we have jurisdiction because the notice "is the functional equivalent of what the rule requires." Smith v. Barry, 112 S.Ct. 678, 682 (1992) (quoting Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 316-17 (1988)), see, e.g., Intel…