### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 00042 LAR RYI . L I NT ON P l a i n tiff - R esp on d en t v. S H E L L O IL C O . E T A L . D efen da n t s - P et i t i on ers

P et i t i on f

or Lea ve t o A pp ealf rom I n t erl ocutory O rders B ef ore JO L LY , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: W e i s s ue aw r i t t e n o pi ni o n o n t hi s m o t i o n f o rl e av e t o a ppe alpur s uant to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 2 (b ) in o r d e rto a le r t d is tr ic t ju d g e s to th e n e e dto p r o v id e in t he i rc e r t i f

i c at i o n o r de r s s o m e de m o ns t r at i o n t hatt he g o ve r ni ng s t and ar ds f o ra n i nt e r l o c ut o r y ap pe alha veb e e n m e t . The i ns t antm o t i o n i s m ad e i n t he cou rse o f l i ti ga ti on be tw ee n P l a i n tiff-R esp on d en t L a rryL i n ton (“P l a i n tiff ”) a n dD e fe n d a n ts -P e tit io n e r s S h e ll O il C o m p a n ye t a l. P l ai n t i f f w as em pl oyedas a w orker on the N aK i ka F l oati n g P rodu ct i on F a c ility(“N a K ik a ”), w h ic h is lo c a te da b o v e th e O u te rC o n tin e n ta l S h e lf adj acen tt o t h e State of L ou i si an a an d i s ow n ed byD efen da n tSh el lO i lC o. ( “ She l l” ) . Pl ai nt i f

f a l l e ge d thathe w as i nj ur e d whi l e w o r ki ng o n t he N aKi ka an d brou gh tsui tcontending that because the N aK i ka i s a vesselhe i s a United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 26, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 00004

2 se am an und ert he Jo nes A c t , 46 U . S. C . § 30101 etse q . Sh el lm ovedf or sum m ary j u dg m en t . I n one order t h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed S h el l ’ s m ot i on f or sum m ary j u dg m en tan d cert i f i ed to u s “t h e i ssues rai sed i n t h e M ot i on f or Su m m ar y Judgm ent . . . , i n t he M em or anda i n Su ppor tt her eo f, and an O pp osi t i on t o t h e M ot i on f or Su m m ary Ju dg m en t . ” H ow ever, t h e di st ri ct c o ur t ’ s o r de rdo e s no tc o nt ai n f i ndi ngs o f

fac t s , c o nc l us i o ns o f l aw, o ra ny ap pl i cat i on of

l aw t o fact s, an d the m ot i on f or s u m m ary j u dg m en t , opp osi t i on an d m em oran du m i n sup port h ave n otbeen f i l ed w i t h us. The di s t r i c tc o ur ts t at e d thatt he i s s ue s i tha d d e c i de d i n de nyi ng Sh ell ’ s m ot i on f

ors um m ar y j udgm ent“i ncl ude: ( 1) w het herLoui si ana l aw ap pl i e s , a s s ur r o ga t e fe de r all aw, und e rt he O ut e rCont i ne nt alShe l f La nds A c t , 43 U . S. C . § 1331 etse q . , t o t h e cl ai m s brough tby P l ai n t i f f i n t h ese pro c ee di ngs, w i t houtr egar d t o w het hert he N aki ka i s a ve ss eloran ar t i f i c i al i slan dan d( 2 ) w h eth er th e N a k i k ai s a ‘ve sse l ’f or p u rp ose s of th e J on es A ct, 4 6 U .S .C . § 3 0 1 0 1 , etse q . ” U si n g t h e st atutor y l an gu age of sec t i on 129 2(b) , t h e di st ri ctcourt opi n ed that t h ese i ssues i n volve controll i n g qu est i on s of l aw as t o w h i ch there i s subs t ant i algr ound f ordif fer enc e o f

opi ni on and t hatan i m m edi at e a ppeal f r o m t he o r de rm aym at e r i all y ad va nc e t he ul t i m at e t e r m i nat i o n o f t he l i t i ga t i o n. N o f

ur t he rj us t i f

i c at i o n f

o rt he i nt e r l o c ut o r y ap pe alw as g ive n. P rel i m i n ari l y, i tshou l d be n ot ed, t h at s ect i on 129 2(b) au t h ori zes c e r tific a tio n o f o r d e r s fo rin te r lo c u to r ya p p e a l, n o t c e r tific a tio n o f q u e s tio n s . S ee Is ra Fruitv. Agrexc o , 8 0 4 F .2 d2 4 , 2 5 (2 dC ir . 1 9 8 6 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. B a n c o Caf

e t e ro Pa n a ma , 7 9 7 F .2 d1 1 5 4 , 1 1 5 6 -5 7 (2 dC ir . 1 9 8 6 ); Chem i c al B an k v. A rt h u r A n d ers en & Co. , 7 2 6 F .2 d9 3 0 , 9 3 6 n .1 0 (2 dC ir .), cer t . den i ed , 469 U . S . 884 ( 198 4) . O f course, i n cer t i f

yi n g an order f

or i n t erl ocutory r evi ew i ti s he l pf

ulif t he di s t r i c tj udg e f

r am e s t he c o nt r o l l i ng que s t i o n( s ) t hatt he j u dg e bel i eves i s presented by t h e order bei n g cert i f i ed, as t h e di st ri ctcourtN o. 09- 00004

3 d idinth is ca s e . S ee 1 6 C h a r l e s A . Wr i g h t , A r t h u rR . Mi l l e r , & E d wa r dH. C oo per , Feder alPrac t i c e & Pro c edur e § 3929 n. 61 ( 2d ed. 2008) (c i t i ng Is ra Fru it , 8 0 4 F .2 da t 2 5 ); seealso B a n c o Caf e t e ro Pa n a ma , 797 F. 2d at1157; S CM Corp. v. X

erox Corp . , 599 F . 2d32, 33 ( 2dC i r. 197 9) . I n t h e i n st an tcase, h ow ever, t h e defen da n t s s h ou l d h ave sou gh tcer t i f i cat i on not onl y of

t h ese ba r e q ue s t i o ns o f

l aw buta l s o o f

t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o r de rg ivi ng i t s r e as o ni ng as t o ho w t he s e q ue s t i o ns w e r e r e s o lve d a nd why thatr e s o l ut i o n l e d t o t he de ni alo f

She l l ’s m o t i o n f

o rs um m ar y j udg m e nt . I nde e d, i ta ppe ar s t hatt he di st r i c tc our tm ay have c onc l uded t hatt her e a r e g enui ne i ss ues of m at er i al fact s c on cerni n g w h et h er th e N i kika i s a vesselt h at m u stbe res olvedbef ore reachi n g t h ese l egal qu est i on s. F u rt h er, w e st rongly s u ggest t o di st ri ctj u dg es t h e adv i sabi l i t y of st at i ng m or e than an abst r ac tdes c r i pt i on o f t he l egalques t i ons i nvolved ora bare f i n di n g t h at th e st atutor y requ i rem en t s of sec t i on 129 2(b) ha ve been m et . Th i s c i rcui t , as w el las ot h er c i rcui t s, ha ve repeatedl y m ad e t h e sam e or s im ila rp o in ts w ith re s p e c t t o ce r tific a tio n s u n d e rF e d .R .C iv .P . 5 4 (b ). S e e, e.g ., R ot h enb erg v. S ecuri ty Man ag em ent Co. , I n c. , 6 1 7 F .2 d1 1 4 9 , 1 1 5 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ); Hu ckeby v. Froze n F oodExpress , 5 5 5 F .2 d5 4 2 , 5 5 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 7 ); see a lso C u llen v. Ma rg iotta , 6 1 8 F .2 d2 2 6 , 2 2 8 (2 dC ir . 1 9 8 0 ); G um e rv. She ars o n, Ham m i l l& Co. , I nc ., 5 1 6 F .2 d2 8 3 , 2 8 6 (2 dC ir . 1 9 7 4 ); Arl i ngh aus v . Ri t e no ur , 5 43 F. 2d4 61 , 4 64 ( 2dCi r . 19 76 ) . Tho ughi tw i l lo f t e n b e e vi de nt w h y t h e qu est i on presented by the cert i f i ed order i s “ controll i n g, ” el aborati on by t he di st r i c tj udge w i l lnor m al l y be hel pf uli n un der st andi ng w hy t he j udge beli eve s t hatt her e i s a “ subs t ant i algr ound f ordif fer enc e o f

opi ni on” and t hat “i m m ed i a te ap p ea lf rom the ord er m a y m a terial l y a d va n ce th e u l ti m a te term i n a ti on of th e liti ga ti on . ” S ee1 6 C h a r le s A . W r ig h t, A r th u rR . M ille r , & E d w a rd H . C o o p e r, F e d e ra l P ra ctice & P ro ce d u re § 3 9 3 0 n .10 (2d ed . 2 0 0 8 ). F o rt h e s e r e a s o n s , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o rl e a v e t o a p p e a li s DE NI ED .