Ingram Barge Co. v. Parfait Family

Fifth Circuit

Ingram Barge Co. v. Parfait Family

262 F. App'x 576

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 17, 2008

Docket06-30705, 07-30273

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 F. App'x 576 (Ingram Barge Co. v. Parfait Family) 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

Ingram Barge Co. v. Parfait Family, 262 F. App'x 576 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

We agree with Defendant-Appellee the United States of America that we lack appellate jurisdiction over these consolidated cases. There is no appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Moreover, the appellants did not seek, nor did the District Court issue, a Rule 54(b) certification. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Huckeby v. Frozen Food Express, 555 F.2d 542, 544-46, 550 (5th Cir.1977). And assuming arguendo that all claims raised herein sound in admiralty, there is no appealable interlocutory decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) because the District Court “d[id] not determine [the] parties’ substantive rights or liabilities” and therefore the orders at issue “are not appealable under section 1292(a)(3), even if those orders have important procedural consequences.” Allen v. Okam Holdings, Inc., 116 F.3d 153, 154 (5th Cir.1997) (quoting In re Complaint of Ingram, Towing Co., 59 F.3d 513, 517 (5th Cir.1995)) (emphasis in original).

Our decision today neither conflicts with Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 951 F.2d 92 (5th Cir.1992) nor with Loeber v. Bay Tankers, Inc., 924 F.2d 1340 (5th Cir.1991). Although we exercised Section 1292(a)(3) jurisdiction over District Court decisions dismissing admiralty claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, neither the Courts nor the parties in those cases raised jurisdiction. Because the Bethlehem and Loeber Courts thus assumed that they had jurisdiction, neither made any holding concerning Section 1292(a)(3).

The parties have not raised nor do we find any other basis for jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

We agree with Defendant-Appellee the United States of America that we lack appellate jurisdiction over these consolidated cases. There is no appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Moreover, the appellants did not seek, nor did the District Court issue, a Rule 54(b) certification. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Huckeby v. Frozen Food Express, 555 F.2d 542, 544-46, 550 (5th Cir.1977). And assuming arguendo that all claims raised herein sound in admiralty, there is no appealable interlocutory decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3) because the District Court “d[id] not determine [the] parties’ substantive rights or liabilities” and therefore the orders at issue “are not appealable under section 1292(a)(3), even if those orders have important procedural consequences.” Allen v. Okam Holdings, Inc., 116 F.3d 153, 154 (5th Cir.1997) (quoting In re Complaint of Ingram, Towing Co., 59 F.3d 513, 517 (5th Cir.1995)) (emphasis in original).

Our decision today neither conflicts with Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 951 F.2d 92 (5th Cir.1992) nor with Loeber v. Bay Tankers, Inc., 924 F.2d 1340 (5th Cir.1991). Although we exercised Section 1292(a)(3) jurisdiction over District Court decisions dismissing admiralty claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, neither the Courts nor the parties in those cases raised jurisdiction. Because the Bethlehem and Loeber Courts thus assumed that they had jurisdiction, neither made any holding concerning Section 1292(a)(3).

The parties have not raised nor do we find any other basis for jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

*

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)

262 F. App'x 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingram-barge-co-v-parfait-family-ca5-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack