# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 22-20372 Summary Calendar

Bret Bynum, Plaintiff—Appellant ,

versus Ingram Barge Company; Ma rquette 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 ac tion 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* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 31, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-20372 Document: 00516697466 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023No. 22-20372

2 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 distri ct 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 defe nse 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 Sect ion 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. C ONST

. Art. III, § 2 (extending federal judicial power “to all Cases of admiralty and ma ritime Jurisdiction”). In contrast, there is only “one form of action—the civil action.” F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 2. Congress has thus provided federal distri ct courts original jurisdiction over any “civil case of admiralt y 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 ‘act ion’ 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 applie s to all “civil action[s] to recover remuneration for giving ai d or salvage services.” Its applicability does not depend on the type of jurisdic tion invoked by the litigant. 1 Bynum’s civil

1 See 8 David J. Bederman, B ENEDICT ON A DMIRALTY § 13.08 (2022); accord Am. S.S. Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass’n v. Dann Ocean Towing, Inc. , 756 F.3d 314, 318 (4th Case: 22-20372 Document: 00516697466 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2023No. 22-20372

3 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). Case: 22-20372 Document: 00516697466 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2023