Amos Chauvin v. Antill Pipeline Const Co., Inc, et al, No. 11-30025 (5th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-30025 Document: 00511584823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-30025 Summary Calendar August 26, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk AMOS CHAUVIN, and wife, Plaintiff Appellant v. ANTILL PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED; ANTILL PIPELINE COMPANY, INCORPORATED; ANTILL PIPELINE CORPORATION; ANTILL PIPELINE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendants Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:09 CV 5923 Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Louisiana seaman Amos Chauvin and his wife Katina Chauvin appeal from the district court s judgment in favor of Defendants Appellees Antill Pipeline Construction Co. and others ( Antill ). Chauvin contends that the district court failed to render judgment on one of his claims specifically, his Jones Act claim for larger maintenance and cure payments and thus, the court s judgment does not dispose of all claims asserted in the district court * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-30025 Document: 00511584823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2011 No. 11-30025 below. The district court denied Chauvin s motion for a new trial, see FED. R. CIV. P. 59(a)(2), in which he made this same assertion, among others. The parties do not dispute that Chauvin was receiving maintenance and cure payments from Antill at the time of trial.1 The crux of Chauvin s claim on appeal, like his Rule 59 motion in the district court, concerns the sufficiency of those payments. But, as the district court correctly observed, the sufficiency of Antill s maintenance and cure payments was never an issue for trial. See Order and Op., Dkt. 156, at 3. Although Chauvin s complaint originally alleged that Antill failed in its duty to pay maintenance and cure in full, no issue is raised in regard to the sufficiency of the maintenance and cure payments in the proposed pretrial order submitted by the parties or the final pretrial order entered by the court. The pretrial order, not Chauvin s complaint, defined the issues left for trial. See Kona Tech. Corp. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 225 F.3d 595, 604 (5th Cir. 2000). Here, the district court s judgment properly disposed of those issues identified in the pretrial order and tried to the court. Chauvin s appeal is wholly without merit. While we have the discretion to penalize such appeals by awarding just damages and single or double costs to the appellee, FED. R. APP. P. 38, we are also mindful of the chilling effect that the imposition of sanctions could have on other litigants, see Abbs v. Principi, 237 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and we decline to impose sanctions at this time. Chauvin s attorneys, Jack W. Harang and Martina E. Cartwight, are WARNED that frivolous appeals in the future will not be tolerated. AFFIRMED. 1 See Pls. Original Compl., Dkt. 1, at 7 ( Defendants are only paying him $245.00 a week, but this is far less than one half of what he earned at his regular salary as a Captain on their vessel before being injured. ). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
