FKM Inc. v. Williams

Fifth Circuit

FKM Inc. v. Williams

122 F. App'x 783

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 11, 2005

Docket04-20594

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 F. App'x 783 (FKM Inc. v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

FKM Inc. v. Williams, 122 F. App'x 783 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

FKM, Inc. appeals the district court’s order granting Cleto Williams’ motion to lift stay in this action brought under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. app. §§ 181-195 (the Act). We affirm.

We essentially agree with the analysis given by the district court, and can find no error of law or abuse of discretion that would warrant overturning the order. So long as the district court hearing the limitation action “satisfies itself that a vessel owner’s right to seek limitation will be protected, the decision to dissolve the injunction is well within the court’s discretion.” Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 454, 121 S.Ct. 993, 148 L.Ed.2d 931 (2001). While Lewis did not involve the precise issue pending before us, we believe that the essential purpose of the Act in these circumstances- — to limit FKM’s liability to the value of the limitation fund — was preserved.

Perhaps one party or the other has engaged in forum shopping, and perhaps one court or the other should entertain a motion for intra-district transfer, but that issue is not before us.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

FKM, Inc. appeals the district court’s order granting Cleto Williams’ motion to lift stay in this action brought under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. app. §§ 181-195 (the Act). We affirm.

We essentially agree with the analysis given by the district court, and can find no error of law or abuse of discretion that would warrant overturning the order. So long as the district court hearing the limitation action “satisfies itself that a vessel owner’s right to seek limitation will be protected, the decision to dissolve the injunction is well within the court’s discretion.” Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 454, 121 S.Ct. 993, 148 L.Ed.2d 931 (2001). While Lewis did not involve the precise issue pending before us, we believe that the essential purpose of the Act in these circumstances- — to limit FKM’s liability to the value of the limitation fund — was preserved.

Perhaps one party or the other has engaged in forum shopping, and perhaps one court or the other should entertain a motion for intra-district transfer, but that issue is not before us.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 F. App'x 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fkm-inc-v-williams-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack