In Re: Complaint Ingram Barge

Full title: In re: In the Matter of the COMPLAINT OF INGRAM BARGE COMPANY, As Owner of…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jan 15, 2008

262 F. App'x 576 (5th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

Nos. 06-30705, 07-30273.

January 15, 2008.

Ashton R. O'Dwyer, Jr., New Orleans, LA, for Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Ashton R. O'Dwyer, Jr., New Orleans, LA, pro se.

Mark Bernard Stern, Dana Joan Martin, Sarang Vijay Damle, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Robin D. Smith, U.S. Department of Justice, Torts Branch, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Third Party Defendants-Appellees.

Robert B. Fisher, Jr., Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Toler Sarpy, Daniel A. Webb, Sutterfield Webb, James A. Cobb, Jr., John Francis Emmett, Emmett, Cobb, Waits Henning, Rufus C Harris, III, Harris Rufty, New Orleans, LA, Mark S. Raffman, Goodwin Procter, Washington, DC, for Third Party Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 2:05-CV-5724.

Before GARWOOD, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:[fn*] [fn*] 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

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); Hukeby 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 Touring 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.