Richmond Shipping Co v. M/V Rio Atrato, et

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 99-20972
Summary Calendar
RICHMOND SHIPPING COMPANY LTD; EAST COAST MARINE CO LTD,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
and
THE WEST OF ENGLAND SHIP OWNERS MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
(LUXEMBOURG); ET AL
THE WEST OF ENGLAND SHIP OWNERS MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
(LUXEMBOURG); RIISE SHIPPING INC; SUDERMAN AND YOUNG TOWING CO;
HOUSTON SHIP REPAIR INC; CMP COATINGS INC; HAMBURG SHIPPING
SERVICES GMBH, INC; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON;
UNIVERSAL COOPERATIVES INC; BRITANNIA MARINE SERVICES LIMITED;
PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY; BANCO SANTANDER SA
Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellees
VERSUS
MANUEL G PENA LOPEZ,
Movant-Appellant
and
RAFAEL A BARRIOS; ALVARO L BUSTILLO; SERGIO CAMARGO; ISMAEL E
HERNANDEZ U; CARLOS M SALGADO; ISMAEL E SARMIENTO; HUGO R TERAN;
LUIS IGNACIO ARBOLEDA; GREGORIS CAMPO M; EDUARDO CERVANTES C; HENRY
D LA VICTORIA; LEONARDO ESPITIA R; ROBERT R GUERRERO A; ERNESTO
GUZMAN C; ALVARO GUZMAN P; CLARENCE HOOKER A; CARLOS LOPEZ F; LUIS
G OVIEDO T; MARIO QUINTERO U; FRANCISCO J RIVERA S; OTTO N F
STADLIN Z; MARIO VALDERAMA M; HUGO A VALERO V; JAIME VILLEGAS M
Appellants
and
MASTER OF M/V RIO ATRATO, her Engines Tackle Appurtenances etc in
rem; LINEAS AGROMAR SA, in personam
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas, Houston
(H-98-CV-3950)
November 3, 2000
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellants, Colombian nationals and members of the crew of the
M/V RIO ATRATO while owned by Lineas Agromar S.A., appeal from a
district court’s final judgment disbursing sale proceeds of the
vessel. The M/V RIO ATRATO was seized and sold, and a number of
claimants, including Appellants, intervened. Appellants were
awarded a total of $136,962.26, representing pre-seizure wages and
post-seizure custodia legis expenses, which they now appeal.
First, we find that this court has jurisdiction. Although the
M/V RIO ATRATO has been sold, “the Court of Appeals is not divested
of jurisdiction by the prevailing party’s transfer of the res from
the district.” Republic National Bank of Miami v. United States,
506 U.S. 80, 88-9 (1992). We also find that the “useless judgment”
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
No. 99-20972
-3-
exception does not apply. See id. at 85 (noting a “useless”
exception “where the release of the property would render the
judgment ‘useless’ because ‘the thing could neither be delivered to
the libellants, nor restored to the claimants.’” This exception is
very limited, only applying where the judgment will have no effect
whatsoever.).
Second, we review a district court’s findings of facts for
clear error. Associated Metals & Minerals Inc. v. Alexander’s
Unity M/V, 41 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we find
no clear error in the district court’s award of $20,889.29 for a
preferred maritime lien wage claim. Appellants did not present
evidence sufficient to support a higher award. Although they rely
on certain judicial admissions by another party, “[f]actual
assertions in pleadings are judicial admissions conclusively
binding [only] on the party that made them.” Morales v. Department
of Army, 947 F.2d 766, 769 (5th Cir. 1991)(emphasis added).
Finally, custodia legis expenses are reviewed for abuse of
discretion. Associated Metals & Minerals Inc., 41 F.3d at 1010.
Although Appellants argue that the district court committed a
clerical error with respect to the calculation of the crew’s wages,
we, however, do not find an abuse of discretion in the custodia
legis award. See In the Matter of Kingstate Oil, 815 F.2d 918, 922
(5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
No. 99-20972
-4-