FKM Inc. v. Williams , 122 F. App'x 783 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    February 11, 2005
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                       Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 04-20594
    Summary Calendar
    In Re: In the matter of the Complaint of FKM, Inc for Exoneration
    from or Limitation of Liability
    FKM, Inc.,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    CLETO WILLIAMS,
    Claimant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for
    the Southern District of Texas
    (USDC No. 4:03-CV-3804)
    _________________________________________________________
    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    FKM, Inc. appeals the district court’s order granting Cleto Williams’ motion to lift
    stay in this action brought under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. app. §§ 181-
    195 (the Act). We affirm.
    *
    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    not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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 essentially agree with the analysis given by the district court, and can find no
    error of law or abuse of discretion that would warrant overturning the order. So long as
    the district court hearing the limitation action “satisfies itself that a vessel owner’s right to
    seek limitation will be protected, the decision to dissolve the injunction is well within the
    court’s discretion.” Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 
    531 U.S. 438
    , 454 (2001).
    While Lewis did not involve the precise issue pending before us, we believe that the
    essential purpose of the Act in these circumstances—to limit FKM’s liability to the value
    of the limitation fund—was preserved.
    Perhaps one party or the other has engaged in forum shopping, and perhaps one
    court or the other should entertain a motion for intra-district transfer, but that issue is not
    before us.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-20594

Citation Numbers: 122 F. App'x 783

Judges: Higginbotham, Jolly, Per Curiam, Reavley

Filed Date: 2/11/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023