United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 17, 1998
FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
_________________
No. 98-20072
Summary Calendar
_________________
GULF GLOBAL NAVIGATION LIMITED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CERREY S.A. de C.V.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-96-CV-1630)
November 17, 1998
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Gulf Global Navigation Limited (“Gulf Global”) appeals the
district court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of
Cerrey S.A. de C.V. (“Cerrey”). We review the district court's
grant of summary judgment de novo. See Exxon Corp. v. St. Paul
Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 1997).
Gulf Global and Cerrey, through their agents, entered into a
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, we have 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
contract under which Gulf Global agreed to transport a dissembled
chimney from Tampico, Mexico to Buenos Aires, Argentina. Shortly
after they signed the contract, Cerrey indicated its intent not to
perform in accordance with the contract. Gulf Global refused to
accept this repudiation and continued to perform under the
contract, including nominating a second vessel to make the agreed
shipment after successfully obtaining alternate cargo for the
original one. Gulf Global contends that the district court erred
in determining that Cerrey made a clear and unequivocal
repudiation, that Gulf Global's nomination of another vessel was
unreasonable, and that Gulf Global failed to mitigate its damages.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and
affirm substantially for the reasons given by the district court.
See Gulf Global Navigation Ltd. v. Cerrey S.A. de C.V., H-96-CV-
1630 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 1997). Gulf Global has failed to meet its
burden of establishing that there is a genuine issue of material
fact, or that the district court erred in its legal holdings. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n of
America, 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997)(“[S]ummary judgment is
appropriate where the pleadings and summary judgment evidence
present no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”).
AFFIRMED.
-2-