Kirby Inland Marine v. Sanchez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 14, 2024
• Docket: 23-20312
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-20312 Document: 86-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED March 14, 2024 No. 23-20312 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk In the Matter of Kirby Inland Marine, LP, Owner of M/V Sabinal, for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability

Kirby Inland Marine, L.P., Owner of M/V Sabinal,

Petitioner—Appellee,

versus

Daniel Sanchez,

Claimant—Appellant,

Intercontinental Terminals Company, L.L.C.,

Claimant—Appellee, _____________________________

In the Matter of Kirby Inland Marine, LP, Owner of M/V Sabinal, for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability

Michael Randolph, Case: 23-20312 Document: 86-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2024

In the Matter of Kirby Inland Marine, LP, Owner of M/V Sabinal, for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability

David Hayes,

Claimant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC Nos. 4:21-CV-2965, 4:21-CV-2966, 4:21-CV-2967 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Haynes, and Higginson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: *

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

2 Case: 23-20312 Document: 86-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/14/2024

No. 23-20312

Claimants-Appellants Daniel Sanchez, Michael Randolph, and David Hayes (the “Seaman-Claimants”) appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to lift the limitation stay imposed by the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, 46 U.S.C. § 30511(c). The Seaman-Claimants argue that Claim- ant-Appellee Intercontinental Terminals Company’s (“ITC”) claims against Petitioner-Appellee Kirby Inland Marine, LP (“Kirby”) are invalid and thus ITC’s refusal to enter stipulations consistent with our decision in Odeco Oil & Gas Co., Drilling Division v. Bonnette, 74 F.3d 671 (5th Cir. 1996) is not an impediment to lifting the stay. However, the district court has never ruled on the validity of ITC’s claims against Kirby; in fact, the Seaman- Claimants’ motion to dismiss those claims remains pending. We therefore REMAND for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to expedi- tiously consider the Seaman-Claimants’ motion to dismiss in the first in- stance, and we retain jurisdiction over this limited remand pending the dis- trict court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. See United States v. Gomez, 905 F.3d 347, 356 (5th Cir. 2018). After that court’s ruling, this appeal shall re- turn to the same panel. This case is REMANDED FOR LIMITED CONSIDERA- TION CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.