767 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1985), 85-3104, Astarte Shipping Co. v. Allied Steel & Export Service
|Citation:||767 F.2d 86|
|Party Name:||In the Matter of the Complaint of ASTARTE SHIPPING COMPANY and Chi Yuen Navigation Co., Ltd., as Owner and Operator, Respectively of the M/V Antacus for Exoneration from Limitation of Liability, Petitioners-Appellants, v. ALLIED STEEL & EXPORT SERVICE, et al., Respondents-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||July 11, 1985|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|
Antonio J. Rodriguez, New Orleans, La., and Mark M. Jaffe, New York City, for petitioners-appellants.
Machale A. Miller, New Orleans, La., for Pacific Employers Ins.
J. Francois Allain, Kenneth J. Servay, New Orleans, La.; Michael O. Hardison, Alan Van Pragg, New York City, for Atlantic Lines/Agence/Transocean.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before GEE, RANDALL and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Atlantic Lines, S.A., Atlantic Lines & Navigation Co., Ltd., Agence Maritime Transoceanique, S.A., and Trans Ocean Maritime Agencies, S.A.M., challenge our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. For the reasons that follow, we agree that this appeal must be dismissed.
The sinking of the M/V ANTACUS in July 1984 resulted in suits being brought both in the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Southern District of New York. In the New York proceedings, certain property of the owners of the ANTACUS was attached pursuant to the non-resident attachment provisions of Supplemental Admiralty Rule B(1). The attachment order was issued January 5, 1985; shortly thereafter the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, acting under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407(a), transferred the New York cases to the Eastern District of Louisiana. On February 19, 1985, after the transfer, the appellants here filed their notice of appeal of the order permitting the attachment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. This appeal was later dismissed without prejudice to allow them to pursue this appeal to this circuit.
The appellees' advance two lines for argument why this appeal must be dismissed. The first is that because the order in question was entered by the Southern District of New York, an appeal from it must be taken to the Second Circuit. We disagree. The appellees' conception of appellate jurisdiction does not fit into the overall theory of transfer of causes among the federal district...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP