IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30025

Summary Calendar

AMOS CHAUVIN, and wife,

Plaintiff–Appellant

v.

ANTILL PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED;

ANTILL PIPELINE COMPANY, INCORPORATED; ANTILL PIPELINE

CORPORATION; ANTILL PIPELINE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

Defendants–Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:09–CV–5923

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Louisiana seaman Amos Chauvin and his wife Katina Chauvin appeal

from the district court’s judgment in favor of Defendants–Appellees Antill

Pipeline Construction Co. and others (“Antill”). Chauvin contends that the

district court failed to render judgment on one of his claims—specifically, his

Jones Act claim for larger maintenance and cure payments—and thus, the

court’s judgment “does not dispose of all claims asserted in the district court

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 26, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

Case: 11-30025 Document: 00511584823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2011
No. 11-30025

below.” The district court denied Chauvin’s motion for a new trial, see FED. R.

CIV. P. 59(a)(2), in which he made this same assertion, among others. 

The parties do not dispute that Chauvin was receiving maintenance and

cure payments from Antill at the time of trial. The crux of Chauvin’s claim on 1

appeal, like his Rule 59 motion in the district court, concerns the sufficiency of

those payments. But, as the district court correctly observed, the sufficiency of

Antill’s maintenance and cure payments was never an issue for trial. See Order

and Op., Dkt. 156, at 3. Although Chauvin’s complaint originally alleged that

Antill failed in its duty to pay maintenance and cure “in full,” no issue is raised

in regard to the sufficiency of the maintenance and cure payments in the

proposed pretrial order submitted by the parties or the final pretrial order

entered by the court. The pretrial order, not Chauvin’s complaint, defined the

issues left for trial. See Kona Tech. Corp. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 225 F.3d 595,

604 (5th Cir. 2000). Here, the district court’s judgment properly disposed of

those issues identified in the pretrial order and tried to the court. 

Chauvin’s appeal is wholly without merit. While we have the discretion

to penalize such appeals by awarding “just damages and single or double costs

to the appellee,” FED. R. APP. P. 38, we are also mindful of the chilling effect that

the imposition of sanctions could have on other litigants, see Abbs v. Principi,

237 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and we decline to impose sanctions at this

time. Chauvin’s attorneys, Jack W. Harang and Martina E. Cartwight, are

WARNED that frivolous appeals in the future will not be tolerated. 

AFFIRMED.

See Pls.’ Original Compl., Dkt. 1, at 7 (“Defendants are only paying him $245.00 a

1

week, but this is far less than one half of what he earned at his regular salary as a Captain

on their vessel before being injured.”).

2

Case: 11-30025 Document: 00511584823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2011