In Re Paris Air Crash of March 3, 1974. Doris Leah Kalinsky v. McDonnell Douglas, General Dynamics, the United States and Turkish AirlinesIn Re Paris Air Crash of March 3, 1974. Doris Leah Kalinsky v. McDonnell Douglas, General Dynamics, the United States and Turkish Airlines
The instant action arises out of an aircraft accident on March 3, 1974, near Paris, France, which claimed the life of, among others, plaintiffs’ decedent, Nancy Kalin-sky.
The operative complaint (Third Amended Complaint) was filed July 8, 1975, by plain *265 tiffs, naming as defendants McDonnell Douglas Corporation, General Dynamics Corporation, Turk Hava Yallari (Turkish Airlines), and the United States of America. All named defendants answered the Third Amended Complaint.
On February 10, 1977, plaintiffs’ counsel, and counsel for McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics, stipulated, and the trial court so ordered, that plaintiffs would try their action for compensatory damages against McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics. Such a trial was held and plaintiffs were awarded $25,000. Plaintiffs appealed this judgment but did not file the notice of appeal until 44 days after the judgment. Defendants McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics then made a motion before this court to dismiss the appeal under
Under
The issue which confronts us here is whether or not the United States is a “party” to this action such as to make plaintiffs’ appeal time 60 instead of 30 days.
It is true that the United States was not directly involved in this particular procedural facet of the case since the bifurcated trial on the compensatory damages issue was only against McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics. However, from the record before us the United States remains a named party and appears to have some continuing interest in this phase of the litigation by reason of an agreement for contribution. Moreover, the United States has participated to some degree in the overall case.
We hold under these facts that when the United States is a named party, participates in the general action and is, or may be, interested in the outcome of an appeal, even though it is not a party to the appeal, then it is a “party” for purposes of F.R.A.P. 4(a) and the 60-day time limit for appeal applies.
See, e. g., American Express Lines v. Revel,
Accordingly, appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal is DENIED.
Two other pending motions are disposed of as follows:
(a) Appellants’ motion for extension of time to file the record and to transfer portions of the record is GRANTED and appellants shall arrange with the Clerk’s office for the transfer of portions of the record; and
*266 (b) Appellants are GRANTED thirty-five days from the entry of this opinion and order in which to file their brief.
Notes
. Here we do not have the situation in such cases as
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Conner,