Case: 10-20679 Document: 00511561245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 3, 2011
No. 10-20679 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
In Re: In the Matter of The Complaint of tucker Energy Services, Ltd., as
Owner and Operator of the Miss Nevelyn for Exoneration from or Limitation
of Liability
TUCKER ENERGY SERVICES, LIMITED,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
FLAMBEAU ENVIRONMENTAL, INCORPORATED;
FLAMBEAU CONTROLS,
Defendants-Appellants
B.J. CHAUVIN, III,
Claimant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CV-01265
Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and ELROD, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 10-20679 Document: 00511561245 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2011
No. 10-20679
Plaintiff-Appellee Tucker Energy Services, Ltd. (“Tucker”) filed a
limitation proceeding in which Claimant-Appellant B.J. Chauvin III filed a claim
for personal injury arising out of his alleged emotional injures incurred when
Tucker’s vessel, the Miss Nevelyn, capsized. The district court concluded that
Chauvin could not recover from Tucker based on its determinations, among
others not challenged on appeal, that: (1) Chauvin was not a Sieracki seaman,
(2) Chauvin did not suffer from recoverable mental anguish, (3) it had subject
matter jurisdiction, (4) it was not required to dismiss Tucker’s limitation
proceeding in light of the related litigation subsequently initiated in Trinidad,
and (5) G. Fred Liebkemann should be striken as an expert witness. Our careful
review of the facts and law as reflected in the record on appeal, and the
arguments of the parties as explicated in their briefs, convince us to affirm the
rulings of the district court, essentially for the reasons set forth in its opinion.
Accordingly, the take-nothing judgment of the district court is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.1
1
In so ruling, we deny the Appellants’ motion to vacate the judgment of the district
court and to dismiss appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2