F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 24 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
FLOYD R. ADAMS; RICHARD G.
ADAMS; JAMES F. ADAMS;
ROBBIE N. ATKINS; WILLIAM D.
BANKER; DAVID BARTA;
MORGAN H. BEAN, JR.; BRET W. No. 96-3249
BECHTOLD; JAMES M. BLAGG; (D.C. No. 94-4201-RDR)
SHARON BLANKENSHIP; LUTHER (D. Kan.)
J. BLANTON, JR.; ALBERT
BRINKMAN; DONALD M.
BRONEC; JAMES C. BRONSON;
BILLIE J. BUCHANAN; ADRIAN
CHINN; GUY H. COLE; EARL A.
COLVER, III; BARBARA CROUSE;
DANIEL L. CROUSE; KAY L.
DALSING; JAMES R. DAVIS; JOE
DAVIS; DANIEL E. DEES; DAVID
DOWDLE; RICHARD W. DUDLEY;
RICHARD L. DUNBAR; WILLIAM
A. EAGLES; DAVID R. EDMONDS;
KENT FOERSTER; PEGGY D.
FORTIER; RONNIE E. FOSTER;
DEBRA L. GILLESPIE; JONATHAN
D. GILLESPIE; RICHARD D.
GILLESPIE; JAMES GILLILAND;
LANNY L. GIRARD; DAN GOFF;
GARY E. GOODIN; JANICE S.
GOODIN; ARTHUR T. GREEN;
RANDALL H. GREEN; DAVID R.
GWARTNEY; LAWRENCE W.
HENDERSON; FRED S.
HILDERBRANDT; LEANNA K.
HINK; DIANNA HUNSAKER;
JANICE L. JACKSON; MICHAEL D.
JACKSON; RANDALL E. JEWELL;
RICHARD K. JOYCE; BRENDA S.
KIRBY; M. SUE KROLL; DANIEL E.
LEMASTER; DANA L. LJUNG;
KATHY LYNCH; DAVID J. MALEC;
STEVEN A. MARTIN; VANCE I.
MCCALL; JIMMY N. MCDOUGLE;
RONALD G. MCDOWELL; WILLIE
B. MCFADDEN; ADRIAN J.
MCKEE; JON O. MCLENDON;
JOHN MERCER; RUTH I. MILLER;
JOHN D. MORGAN; GREG
MOSSER; MARCELLA L.
NEWMAN; HARRIET PELLMAN;
STEFANIE PENROD; JOHNNY H.
PEREZ; JERLE REEVES;
NORWOOD G. ROBINS; SHERYL D.
SAWYER; ROBERT SCHEID;
TERRY SCHLIEFERT; CYNTHIA D.
SCHULTE; DEBRA L. SCOTT;
BARRY G. SHULTZ; PATRICK J.
SIMPSON; ROY SIMS, SR.;
MAUREEN L. SMITH; MARGARET
A. SWOPE; STEVEN TACADENA;
ROBERT L. TERRY; JANICE
THOMAS; JAMES THOMPSON;
DAVID E. TURPIN; MARK W.
UTRY; ROGER D. VINZANT;
TRAVIS WARD; JACKIE L. CAREY-
WATERS; GERALD L. WATERS,
JR.; MICHAEL R. WEBB; RONALD
W. WHITFORD; ROBERT L.
WILLIAMS; SUSIE WOHLETZ;
HERBERT D. WOLFE; RICHARD E.
WRIGHT; JOHN W. YEAGER;
ROBERT C. ADAMS; TRACIE
BERTRAND; PRISCILLA L.
BOATWRIGHT; JERRY J.
CHAMBERS; KEVIN CRADIC;
-2-
MICHAEL J. GUEARY; WILLIAM L.
MCDONALD; CARMEN O. MOORE;
FRANCES D. RALES; RICKY A.
STEELE; NANCY E. WILLIAMS;
PATTIE J. ADAMS; HENRY I.
AGBOGA; PEGGY L. ALEXANDER;
RICHARD D. ANDERSON; PERRI G.
ANTHONY; TINA ANTHONY;
RONALD B. ASHLEY; NORMA J.
AVERY; LISA BAKER; WILLIAM F.
BARRY; JACK B. BLOW; KARLA
D. BROOKS; STEVEN P. BUCK;
DELMER K. CARNES; ERNEST
CARTMILL; KEVIN CHAMBERS;
GWEN CHANDLER; TIMOTHY L.
CHAPMAN; RICHARD J.
COURTOT, JR.; ROBIN J.
COURTOT; KEN J. COXWELL;
SHIRLEY CUMMINS; ROBERT L.
DANIELS, JR.; ROLLIE DAVIS, JR.;
VALORIE A. DEHART; JERRY K.
DIETZ; KELLY J. DRIGGERS;
REBECCA L. DUNAVIN; NANCY
EMERY; MICHAEL W. FELLMAN;
RICKLAND O. FORD; RODNEY M.
FORSLOF; ROSELYN FRANKLIN;
WILLIAM F. FRIEND; JULIO
GARCIA; HELGA K. GENTRY;
MICHAEL A. GILMORE; BROOKE
K. GOMEZ; ALLEN R. GOODWIN;
RONALD D. GRIESACKER;
CHERYL GULICKSON; ESTELLA
HALL; HAROLD E. HARDEN;
ROBERT A. HARR; RONALD
HARRIS; CLARENCE HARVEY;
LORI HASTINGS; TERRY D.
HAUGEN; WILLA M. HAYES;
DANNY D. HENDRICKS;
-3-
CHARLES R. HERMAN; PATSY L.
HERTEL; DANA J. HICKMAN;
DAVID W. HODGES; THOMAS
HOLMES; REVA R. HORTON; RICK
HUMERICKHOUSE; MARK J.
HUNT; RONALD E. HUTCHISON,
SR.; SANDRA HUTTON; WILLIAM
INGWERSON; MARK E. ISENBERG;
DWAYNE JACKSON; GERRI L.
JOHNSON; JAMES J. JOHNSON;
KEVIN M. JOHNSON; SUSAN
JOINER; JAMES K. JONES;
STEPHEN O. KERNER; DANNY
KINCANNON; DONALD H. KOCI,
JR.; THOMAS KOLDE; PAMELA E.
KRYSTOFOSKY; MICHAEL B.
LACKEY; CONSTANCE S.
LAWSON; DONALD L. LOGSDON;
MICHAEL LOGSDON; JOSEPH W.
LUTZ; JOSEPH E. MALONE;
LARRY L. MAPLE; RHEA E.
MARTIN; CAROLLE J. MAY;
FLOYD E. MAY; TONY M.
MCDONALD; LINDA K. MCNEIL;
SUSAN K. MEADOWS; EDWARD
MENAL; GLORIA MILLER; JAMES
E. MILLER; WAYNE D. MIMS;
MARGARET B. MOORE; DOROTHY
D. MORALES; THOMAS A.
MOYER; PHYLLIS M. NESBITT;
JOHN T. NEWMAN, SR.; JOAN D.
NIOCE; JAMES F. OGLE; ALICE L.
OWENS; BERNARD W.
PATTERSON; GREGORY G.
PATTERSON; JERALDINE J.
PAULICK; MARK L. PERRY;
PAMELA PETTIS; R.E. PETTIS;
-4-
ROBERT PICKET; MABEL
RAMIREZ; ROBERT RICCOMINI;
VERNON W. RICHMOND; PATRICK
B. ROBERTS; MARK F.
ROBERTSON; MERWYN ROBISON;
ELIZABETH A. SAINTZ; MARK S.
SAINTZ; PAULINE SAWYER; KENT
L. SCHMIDT; STEVE L. SCHMIDT;
STEVEN E. SCHULTE; QUANNAH
H. SCOTT; LOUISE A. SEASTROM;
DAVE W. SHIELDS; MICHAEL L.
SMOOT; DANIEL J. STEENO;
DOROTHY T. STEENO; WESLEY B.
STILLWELL; MARK E. SWOPE;
BETTY L. THOMPSON; JAMES E.
TOLBERT; LINDA TOWERY;
LESLIE M. TRAUTMAN; RONALD
D. TRAUTMAN; CAROL A. TYLER;
KELLIE M. WALKER-JOHNSON;
GENE P. WARREN, SR.; JIM D.
WARREN; KIMBERLY A.
WILHOITE; JOHNNIE WILLIAMS;
LARRY A. WILLIAMS; SALLIE D.
WILLIAMS; JOHN WINTERS;
RANDY C. WOOD; BRIAN C.
WYNNE; EDWARD E. YAGER;
KATHY BAYLESS; RONALD E.
BISHOP; DONALD R. BURGE;
ROBERT P. CAMARA; SANDRA L.
COCHRAN; FRANCES CRITH;
JOHN L. CROSSWHITE; WANDA
DANIELS; OKORONKWO EMEKA;
JUAN J. GUZMAN; AUGUST W.
JACKSON, III; JAMES A. KING;
AMY M. KINNEY; LESTER
LAWSON; KELLY A. MATTHEWS;
CONNIE MEYER; DONNA MILLER;
-5-
NANCY MOORE; PAMELA L.
ONORI; RONALD E. QUINN;
DAVID ROBLES; JANICE
SAMUELS; ALBERTA M.
SANDEFFER; ANGELA SWISHER;
ANTONIO F. TALBERT; DEBORAH
K. TAYLOR; CAROLYN
THOMPSON; RONALD TOWERY;
TRACY WILKERSON; WAYNE
WRIGHT, JR.; ELBERT L. CAUSEY;
DANNY HEDGES; BRADLEY
RUNYON; ORVILLE SIEG; DENNIS
STEPHENS; R.G. SWENSON;
WILLIAM R. BARRETT; BRUCE E.
BOND; BERNARD E. BOWER;
RONALD DESCH; VERNON
FOSTER; RICHARD H. HOWARD;
HARVEY T. MCDANIEL; HOWARD
ROLES; ROY SIMS, JR.; DONALD
E. SMALLEY; JEFFREY SMITH;
WILLIAM S. SMITH; FRED L.
WALLER, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
-6-
JACK B. BLOW; JERRY K. DIETZ;
GARY L. HERMAN; LARRY L.
MAPLE; DONALD E. SMALLEY;
FRED L. WALLER; CYNTHIA
DERRICK; RONALD DESCH;
HARVEY E. FOSDICK; DANIEL L.
YOUNG; DONALD R. BURGE;
KENT FOERSTER, on behalf of
themselves and other employees
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
No. 96-3251
v. (D.C. No. 94-4215-RDR)
(D. Kan.)
STATE OF KANSAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY and KELLY, Circuit Judges, and CAUTHRON, ** District Judge.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
Honorable Robin J. Cauthron, District Judge, United States District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.
-7-
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. These cases are
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
In these appeals, 1 plaintiffs, present and former employees of the State of
Kansas, appeal the district court’s orders dismissing for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction their actions against the State of Kansas under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219. The district court dismissed
pursuant to Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114 (1996), holding
that because the FLSA was passed pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Clause
and because Congress does not have authority under the Interstate Commerce
Clause, U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3, to abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment
immunity from suit, there can be no cause of action against defendant in federal
court under the FLSA. See Adams v. Kansas, 934 F. Supp. 371, 372 (D. Kan.
1996); Blow v. Kansas, 929 F. Supp. 1400, 1402 (D. Kan. 1996). Plaintiffs also
appeal the district court’s assessment of costs against them. We affirm the
dismissals and conclude we have no jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ arguments
concerning costs.
1
Because the parties in these appeals raise the same issues on appeal and
their briefs are nearly identical, these appeals are considered together.
-8-
The first issue we must consider is whether the notices of appeal adequately
specify the parties appealing. The notice of appeal in No. 96-3249 has a caption
stating the plaintiffs are “Floyd R. Adams, James F. Adams, and Richard G.
Adams on behalf of themselves and other employees similarly situated,” while the
body of the notice states “Floyd R. Adams, James F. Adams, and Richard G.
Adams, et al.” appeal. Appellants’ App. at 55 (No. 96-3249). Likewise, the
notice of appeal in No. 96-3251 has a caption stating the plaintiffs are “Jack
Blow, Jerry K. Deitz and Gary L. Herman, on behalf of themselves and other
employees similarly situated,” while the body of the notice of appeal states that
“Jack Blow, Jerry K. Dietz, and Gary L. Herman, et al.” appeal. Appellants’ App.
at 21 (No. 96-3251). Although a notice of appeal must specify the parties
appealing by naming them in the caption or body of the notice of appeal, an
attorney who represents more than one party may meet this requirement by
describing the parties as “the plaintiffs A, B, et al.” Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). “An
appeal will not be dismissed . . . for failure to name a party whose intent to appeal
is otherwise clear from the notice.” Id.; see Grimsley v. MacKay, 93 F.3d 676,
678 (10th Cir. 1996); Cole v. Ruidoso Municipal Sch., 43 F.3d 1373, 1385 (10th
Cir. 1994). In these cases, the notices of appeal meet the requirements of Rule
3(c), and the intent of the plaintiffs to appeal is clear. Accordingly, we conclude
we have jurisdiction to consider these appeals.
-9-
Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in dismissing these cases for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We review dismissals for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction de novo. See Urban ex rel. Urban v. Jefferson County Sch.
Dist. R-1, 89 F.3d 720, 724 (10th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiffs contentions (1) that the holding in Seminole Tribe should apply
only to the facts in that case; (2) that because Congress may abrogate Eleventh
Amendment immunity pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, there was a proper
abrogation under the FLSA; and (3) that Seminole Tribe is against public policy
because nearly all employees other than state employees have federally protected
labor and employment law rights and state employees have no other avenues of
recourse are all foreclosed by our recent decision in Aaron v. Kansas, Nos.
96-3095, 96-3096, 1997 WL 328849 (10th Cir. June 17, 1997).
Plaintiffs last argument is that the district court erred in assessing costs
against them. Plaintiffs believe that they should not be required to pay costs since
some plaintiffs had prevailed in a prior lawsuit, coworkers had prevailed in
another lawsuit, they filed this action in good faith, and it was unforeseeable that
the Supreme Court would issue the Seminole Tribe decision. We conclude we
have no jurisdiction to consider this argument. Prior to filing their notices of
appeal, plaintiffs filed motions to reconsider the awards of costs. The district
court has not yet ruled on the motions. Until the district court does so, this court
-10-
lacks jurisdiction to consider any appeals concerning costs. Cf. Johnson v. United
States, 780 F.2d 902, 910 (11th Cir. 1986) (concluding no jurisdiction to consider
appeal on issue of costs where district court had not ruled on pending motion to
vacate clerk’s award of costs). 2
The judgments of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
are AFFIRMED. The arguments concerning costs are DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
2
Because “a request for costs raises issues wholly collateral to the judgment
in the main cause of action,” failure to tax costs does not destroy the finality of
any other otherwise appealable orders. Buchanan v. Stanships, Inc., 485 U.S.
265, 268-69 (1988).
-11-