Poincon v. Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc.

11 Citing cases

  1. Mora v. Tex. Petroleum Inv. Co

    Civil Action 22-0615 (W.D. La. Apr. 11, 2024)

    See Poincon v. Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc., 9 F.4th 289, 297 (5th Cir. 2021).

  2. Pritt v. John Crane Inc.

    No. 23-1953 (1st Cir. May. 10, 2024)

    Under our precedent, Pritt has not shown that we have interlocutory jurisdiction.See Poinconv.Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc., 9 F.4th 289, 294-95 (5th Cir. 2021) (holding that, where the original complaint stated that the jurisdiction of the court "is based on the Jones Act . . . and [is] under the general maritime law," "it is clear that [the plaintiff] did not elect admiralty jurisdiction" because "[n]owhere in [the] complaint is there an indication that [the plaintiff] wishes to proceed in admiralty," and "[h]er jury demand likewise signals a desire to proceed on the civil side of the district court"). Pritt has not chosen to drop her jury trial demand even though the case has been calendared for trial in the district court.

  3. Constance Joy II, LLC v. Stewart & Stevenson FDDA LLC

    Civil Action 4:20-CV-02967 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2024)

    As explained by the Fifth Circuit, the term “admiralty” traditionally refers to the courts, jurisdiction, and procedure of maritime law, and “maritime” refers to the substantive law itself. Poincon v. Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc., 9 F.4th 289, 294 n.2 (5th Cir. 2021). But “[t]hat distinction has faded over time, and ‘admiralty' and ‘maritime' are now used largely synonymously.

  4. ENSCO Offshore, LLC v. Cantium, LLC

    Civil Action 24-371 (E.D. La. Apr. 25, 2024)

    See id.; T.N.T. Marine Serv., Inc. v. Weaver Shipyards & Dry Docks, Inc., 702 F.2d 585, 586-87 (5th Cir. 1983); Ortega Garcia v. United States, 586 F.3d 513, 522-23 (5th Cir. 2021). When a complaint does not expressly cite Rule 9(h), courts “look to the ‘totality of the circumstances' to determine if [the plaintiff] made the required ‘simple statement' to ‘properly invoke the district court's admiralty jurisdiction.'” Poincon v. Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc., 9 F.4th 289, 294 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Bodden v. Osgood, 879 F.2d 184, 186 (5th Cir. 1989)). A Rule 9(h) designation is not necessary when a claim is cognizable only in admiralty.

  5. Anthony v. Helix All. Decom

    Civil Action 23-1400 (E.D. La. Nov. 15, 2023)

    Accordingly, “there is no right to a jury trial” in this case. T.N.T. Marine Serv., Inc. v. Weaver Shipyards & Dry Docks, Inc., 702 F.2d 585, 587 (5th Cir. 1983); see Poincon v. Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc., 9 F.4th 289, 295 n.3 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Had [plaintiff] made a proper Rule 9(h) designation . . . the district [court] could have simply denied [plaintiff's] jury demand.”);

  6. BNA Marine Servs. v. Safe Marine Assurance LLC

    6:22-CV-05686 (W.D. La. Jan. 10, 2023)

    Poincon v. Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc., 9 F.4th 289, 294 (5th Cir. 2021).

  7. Garth v. RAC Acceptance E.

    1:19-CV-192-DMB (N.D. Miss. Jul. 15, 2022)

    “Typically, the defendant has the initial burden of demonstrating that a superseding cause cuts off its liability for an injury.” Poincon v. Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc., 9 F.4th 289, 298 (5th Cir. 2021).

  8. Murphy v. United States

    CIVIL 3:18-CV-2809-E-BK (N.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2022)

    Finally, the Government requests that the Court enter judgment as to DiFrancesco and Murphy, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because there is no pending offer or anticipated settlement between Weiner and the Government. Doc. 84 at 3; Doc. 85 at 3; see Poincon v. Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc., 9 F.4th 289, 295-96 (5th Cir. 2021) (providing that under Rule 54(b), district courts “may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.”)

  9. Maritech Marine Servs. v. Bay Welding Servs.

    593 F. Supp. 3d 902 (D. Alaska 2022)

    Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to it, Bay Weld has demonstrated multiple issues of disputed fact that preclude summary judgment for Maritech.SeePoincon v. Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc. , 9 F.4th 289, 297 (5th Cir. 2021) (" ‘Questions of causation in admiralty are questions of fact,’ and they are best left to the factfinder ... when there is a genuine dispute." (quoting Stolt Achievement, Ltd. v. Dredge B.E. LINDHOLM , 447 F.3d 360, 367 (5th Cir. 2006) ))

  10. Pruco Life Ins. Co. v. Villarreal

    Civil Action H-17-2795 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Unsworn expert testimony can be made admissible for trial, and it is appropriate for the court to consider it as competent summary judgment evidence. See Poincon v. Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc., __F.4th__, 2021 WL 3578614, at *7 n.4 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2021); Patel v. Tex. Tech Univ., 941 F.3d 743, 747-48 (5th Cir. 2019). And Villarreal has already moved for leave to submit a sworn affidavit to cure the defect, which the court grants.