In Re: Wilson Mrne ( 2003 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30996
In re: In the Matter of: WILSON MARINE TRANSPORTERS INC., as owner, owner pro hac
vice, and operator of the towboat M/V Reality, praying for exoneration for and or limitation of
liability
WILSON MARINE TRANSPORTERS, INC., as owner, owner pro hac vice, and operator of the
towboat M/V Reality,
Petitioner - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH MERRICK, JR.,
Claimant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(98-CV-2938-K)
February 13, 2003
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
1
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3), this Court has appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory admiralty
appeals where the order at issue determines the parties’ substantive rights and obligations. See, e.g.,
Ingram Towing Co. v. Adnac Inc., 59 F.3d 513, 517 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court’s July 19,
2001 order, from which appellant filed a notice of appeal, completely determined the merits of the
underlying unseaworthiness claim. Section 1292(a)(3) confers jurisdiction over that order,
notwithstanding the fact that a contempt motion was pending. See, e.g., Crews v. The Arundel Corp.,
386 F.2d 528, 529 (5th Cir. 1967) (holding that § 1292(a)(3) provided a basis for interlocutory
appellate jurisdiction where the district court had resolved the appellant’s negligence and
unseaworthiness claims, but had yet to resolve a maintenance and cure claim). Appellee’s motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED.
In this interlocutory posture, the district court’s August 30, 2001 order granting, in part,
appellee’s motion for contempt is not before the Court. Thus, we cannot consider appellant’s
invitation to vacate that order. We turn now to the merits of the dispute.
After carefully reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record, we conclude that the findings of the
district court in its July 19, 2001 order and reasons were not clearly erroneous.
AFFIRMED.
2