or body of the notice, but an attorney representing more than one party may describe those parties with terms such as ‘all plaintiffs,’ 'the defendants,' 'the plaintiffs A, B, et al.,’ or 'all defendants except X.’ ” Vivendi S.A.’s notice of appeal makes no mention of Vivendi Holding, and no Ninth Circuit case law holds that the CADS suffices to give notice of an intent to appeal. However, the Supreme Court has held that courts should "liberally construe the requirements of Rule 3. Thus, when papers are technically at a variance with the letter of Rule 3, a court may nonetheless find that the litigant has complied with the rule if the litigant’s action is the functional equivalent of what the rule requires.” Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 247, 112 S.Ct 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Here, the CADS was filed simultaneously with
holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal after an untimely filing of a notice of appeal holding that the filing of an opening brief within the time period for filing a notice of appeal could constitute notice of appeal holding that timeliness of filing of notice of appeal is a jurisdictional issue holding time for filing notice of appeal under rule 8002 is jurisdictional holding same as to the filing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal