This cause is before this Court for the second time. After the district сourt ruled in favor of both defendants on the merits, plaintiff timely filed a notice of appeal and appeаled to this Court. We vacated the judgment of the district court, sua sponte, аnd remanded for consideration of subject matter jurisdictiоn. Upon hearing, the district court concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction as to both defendants and it “ordered that thе judgment of [the district court] entered on March 17,1976, be and is hereby reinstated.” No new notice of appeal was filed by plaintiff.
The initial question we must face is whether we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal since no notice of appeal was filed after the district court’s order “reinstating” its prior judgment. We hold that we do
*1121
have jurisdiction. While the better practice would have been to file a new notice of appeal, we do not find this fault to be fatаl since the initial notice of appeal was timely filеd. While the district court’s latest order could be interpretеd as a new judgment from which a new appeal should be tаken, it is ambiguous. “Reinstating” the prior judgment could also be interрreted as relating back to the date of the prior judgment, which would preserve the initial notice of appeal. We choose to resolve this ambiguity in favor of finding jurisdiction.
See generally United States v. Dean,
In a very similar context, the Supreme Court noted:
It is too late in the day and entirely contrary to the spirit оf the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for decisions on thе merits to be avoided on the basis of such mere technicalities. “The Federal Rules reject the approаch that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by cоunsel may be decisive to the outcome and acсept the principle that the purpose of plеading is to facilitate a proper decision on thе merits.” Conley v. Gibson,355 U.S. 41 , 48,78 S.Ct. 99 ,2 L.Ed.2d 80 . The Rules themselves provide that they are to be construed “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Rule 1.
Foman v. Davis,371 U.S. 178 , 181-82,83 S.Ct. 227 , 230,9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).
The procedurаl posture of this cause is analogous to a premаture filing of a notice of appeal,
i. e.,
a filing beforе entry of any final judgment. It is “clear that an appeal should not be dismissed because it was technically premature if in fact an appealable judgment or order was rеndered below, the appellant clearly manifested his intent to appeal from it and the prevailing party below can show no prejudice resulting from the prematurity оf the notice.” 9 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 1[ 204.14, at 983 (2d ed. 1975). Moore adds that while many “cases overlook sloppy practice, they do not authorize it.”
Id. See also Alexander v. Aero Lodge No. 735,
Turning tо the substance of the appeal, we agree with the district court that it had subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm its judgment in this regard on the basis of the district court’s opinion rendered after remand.
Jackson v. Tennessee Valley Authority,
On the merits of the case, we also agree with the district court’s holding in favor of defendants. We affirm its judgment in this regard on the basis of the district court’s original opinion.
Jackson v. Tennessee Valley Authority,
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.