United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-30655

Cary Payne; Jerome Davis, 

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus

Double J. Marine, L.L.C., as Owner and Owner Pro Hac 

Vice of the M/V Miss Sylvia; 

Brynmark Marine Services, Incorporated; 

GATX Third Aircraft Corporation, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:19-CV-1417

Before Jones, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Plaintiffs Cary Payne and Jerome Davis appeal the dismissal of their 

maritime personal injury claims. Because we have already addressed this 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

November 3, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-30655 Document: 00515624526 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2020
No. 19-30655

2

exact question in a related case and the Plaintiffs make no effort to distinguish 

the present case, we AFFIRM.

In February 2016, Payne and Davis were working on a vessel that was 

struck by another; the owners of the second vessel initiated a Limitation 

Action and four months after the Limitation Action was settled and

dismissed—two and half years after the claims deadline—the Plaintiffs filed

a separate maritime personal injury suit against the vessel owners.1

 The 

district court dismissed for failure to state a claim and denied the Plaintiffs’

request to reopen the Limitation Action. They timely appealed to this court.

This court has already resolved the issue in question. In Collins v. 

Double J. Marine, LLC, No. 19-30659 (5th Cir. Apr. 27, 2020), another 

worker on the ship—represented by the same counsel—appealed the 

dismissal of his separate maritime personal injury claim and the denial of his 

request in that action to reopen the Limitation Action. That case is factually 

and legally identical to the one at hand. The court concluded that the 

shipowners provided proper notice under the statute, Collins had not 

demonstrated he was a known claimant deserving of mailed notice, and he 

failed to prove actual failure to receive notice by publication. Thus, his claim 

was properly dismissed. Further, Collins asserted his claim outside the 

Limitation Action and the Limitation Action is now resolved, so the court 

had no need to determine whether Collins should be afforded an opportunity 

to file late in that proceeding.

The Defendants filed a 28(j) letter in the present case notifying the 

court of the Collins decision. The Plaintiffs have made no effort to distinguish 

1 Collins v. Double J. Marine, LLC describes the facts in greater detail. No. 19-

30659 (5th Cir. Apr. 27, 2020).

Case: 19-30655 Document: 00515624526 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2020
No. 19-30655

3

the case at hand or respond at all. Factually and legally, these cases are the 

same, down to the briefing. The outcome is as well.2

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 The court takes notice that after this appeal (as well as the appeal in Collins) was 

filed, the Plaintiffs filed a Rule 60(b) motion in an effort to directly reopen the Limitations 

Action. That motion was denied, and they have since filed a separate appeal of the denial 

of their Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the Limitation Action such that the same counsel has 

brought a total of three appeals over this situation. In re M/V Miss Sylvia, No. 20-30277. 

Although counsel advised of the related cases, the parties failed to seek consolidation of the 

three appeals, which would have been appropriate; accordingly, when Case No. 20-30277 

is ready for submission, the Clerk’s Office is directed to transfer it to this panel for 

resolution.

Case: 19-30655 Document: 00515624526 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/03/2020