Heyert
Heyert v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Walter and Jane Heyert appeal the district court’s grant of partial judgment on the pleadings and partial summary judgment in favor of State Farm. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
We raise sua sponte whether the Heyerts’ notice of appeal limits the scope of the Heyerts’ appeal only to the district court’s denial of the Heyerts’ Rule 59 motion. We have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the underlying judgment because the Heyerts’ timely Rule 59(e) motion tolled the time period for filing a notice of appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4). The only question is whether the underly *601 ing order is properly before us because Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) requires that the notice of appeal “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.”
Generally, “[a] mistake in designating the order being appealed is not fatal ‘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.’ ” McCarthy v. Mayo, 827 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir.1987) (citation omitted); see also Ward v. San Diego County, 791 F.2d 1329, 1331 (9th Cir.1986) (notice of appeal…