eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2023-03

Bynum v. Ingram Barge ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 22-20372     Document: 00516697466         Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/31/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                             United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-20372                        March 31, 2023
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Bret Bynum,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Ingram Barge Company; Marquette Transportation
Company, LLC,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CV-3346
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Appellant Bret Bynum brought an action in October 2021 seeking an
award for salvaging two barges that broke free from their moorings in August
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-20372        Document: 00516697466            Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 22-20372
2017.       The district court dismissed the action as barred by
    46 U.S.C. § 80107
    ’s two-year limitations period. Bynum timely appealed.
This court reviews de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss an
action for failure to state a claim. Jebaco, Inc. v. Harrah’s Operating Co.,
    587 F.3d 314
    , 318 (5th Cir. 2009). “A motion to dismiss may be granted on
a statute of limitations defense where it is evident from the pleadings that the
action is time-barred, and the pleadings fail to raise some basis for tolling.”
Taylor v. Bailey Tool Mfg.,
    744 F.3d 944
    , 946 (5th Cir. 2014).
Bynum’s sole argument on appeal is that he brought an “admiralty
action for salvage,” which is distinct from a “civil action for salvage.” His
claim is therefore not subject to Section 80107’s limitations period because
that provision only applies to civil actions.
This argument confuses jurisdiction with action. Admiralty is a type of
jurisdiction. See, e.g., U.S. CONST. Art. III, § 2 (extending federal judicial
power “to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction”). In contrast,
there is only “one form of action—the civil action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 2.
Congress has thus provided federal district courts original jurisdiction over
any “civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.”
    28 U.S.C. § 1333
    (1);
see also Nolan v. Boeing Co.,
    919 F.2d 1058
    , 1066 (5th Cir. 1990) (“In federal
practice, the terms ‘case’ and ‘action’ refer to the same thing, i.e., the
entirety of a civil proceeding.”).             This case is therefore properly
characterized as a civil action in admiralty jurisdiction.
Section 80107(c) of Title 46 applies to all “civil action[s] to recover
remuneration for giving aid or salvage services.” Its applicability does not
depend on the type of jurisdiction invoked by the litigant.1 Bynum’s civil
1
See 8 David J. Bederman, BENEDICT ON ADMIRALTY § 13.08 (2022); accord Am.
S.S. Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass’n v. Dann Ocean Towing, Inc.,
    756 F.3d 314
    , 318 (4th
2
Case: 22-20372       Document: 00516697466             Page: 3      Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 22-20372
action to recover a salvage award thus falls squarely within the statute’s
bounds. It therefore must have been “brought within 2 years after the date
the aid or salvage services were given.”
    46 U.S.C. § 80107
    (c).
It is undisputed that Bynum did not bring this action to recover
remuneration for salvage services within two years of performing those
services. His claim is consequently time-barred.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
Cir. 2014) (indicating Section 80107(c)’s limitations period applies to maritime salvage
actions).
3