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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60731

FREDERICK M. SEIFERTH, representative of the Heirs at Law of James A.

Seiferth, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MARK CAMUS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:03-cv-00463

Before JONES, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Frederick M. Seiferth appeals the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of Appellee Mark Camus determining that

Mississippi’s Workmen’s Compensation Act barred Seiferth’s wrongful death

action against Camus, a co-employee. He also alleges that the district court

erred in failing to find Camus’s co-employee defense to be precluded by the “law

of the case” doctrine, collateral estoppel, and res judicata. In addition, he

challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to compel discovery of certain

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 10, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-60731 Document: 00511106450 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2010
No. 09-60731

 Camus’s name was misspelled “Camos” in the initial filings and in the first opinion

1

of the district court on this matter. 

2

documents which he alleges are relevant to his claims against Seiferth. For the

following reasons, we AFFIRM. 

I.

In 2001, James Seiferth, an employee of Air2, LLC, fell to his death when

the base of the helicopter-mounted work platform, on which he was standing,

broke while the helicopter was in mid-flight. The accident occurred near

Indianola, Mississippi while Seiferth and the aircrew were flying from tower to

tower during the inspection of a power transmission line. Mark Camus had 1

designed and patented the external work platform for use with a helicopter.

Camus was a Tennessee domiciliary, and all of his design work was conducted

in Florida, where he lived at the time. Camus also served as Chief Pilot for Air2

at the time of the accident, but he was not piloting the aircraft from which

Seiferth fell. It is undisputed that Camus was not in Mississippi at the time of

the accident, but he had inspected the work platform in Mississippi months

before Seiferth’s accident.

In 2003, Frederick Seiferth, representative of James Seiferth’s heirs, sued

Helicopteros Auternos, Inc., the lessor of the helicopter, and Mark Camus, in his

capacities as designer of the external work platform and as Chief Pilot for Air2,

in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Seiferth brought four

claims against Camus: defective design, failure to warn, negligence, and

negligence per se. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss

all claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, and it also denied Seiferth’s request

for limited jurisdictional discovery as to Helicopteros Atuneros. Seiferth

appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed in part and reversed in part. 

With regard to the question of personal jurisdiction, the Fifth Circuit held

that “[a] plaintiff bringing multiple claims that arise out of different forum

Case: 09-60731 Document: 00511106450 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2010
No. 09-60731

3

contacts of the defendant must establish specific jurisdiction for each claim.”

Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 274 (5th Cir. 2006). The

court determined that Seiferth’s first claim—defective design—arose from

Camus’s design of the work platform from which Seiferth fell, while the

remaining three claims arose from Camus’s contacts with Mississippi he

established during his employment with Air2. Based on these employment

contacts, the court concluded personal jurisdiction existed with regard to

Seiferth’s claims for negligence, negligence per se, and failure to warn.

Accordingly, the court vacated the district court’s dismissal of those claims and

remanded for the court to determine whether the exercise of personal

jurisdiction against Camus was fair and reasonable. By contrast, the Fifth

Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Seiferth’s defective-design claim,

concluding that personal jurisdiction was lacking where “[n]one of Camus’s

Mississippi contacts relate[d] to his design of the platform.” Id. at 275. The

Fifth Circuit also affirmed the district court’s denial of limited jurisdictional

discovery as to Helicopteros Atuneros. 

On remand, the district court determined that the exercise of personal

jurisdiction over Camus as to the remaining claims did not violate notions of fair

play and substantial justice and denied Camus’s motion to dismiss. During the

case-management conference held in January 2008, Seiferth sought to discover

documents relating to the design and licensing of the platform and

communications with the Federal Aviation Administration regarding the

platform. Camus’s counsel would not agree. Seiferth filed a motion to compel

the documents, which the court denied. Camus filed a motion for summary

judgment, asserting that a Mississippi worker’s compensation law barred tort

claims filed against a co-employee. Concluding that Camus was an employee of

Air2, and thereby Seiferth’s co-employee, the court granted summary judgment

on all claims in favor of Camus.

Case: 09-60731 Document: 00511106450 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/10/2010
No. 09-60731

4

II. 

 We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See

Paul v. Landsafe Flood Determination, Inc., 550 F.3d 511, 513 (5th Cir. 2008).

Summary judgment is appropriate only when “‘the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits,

if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

In determining whether a fact issue exists, we review all facts and inferences in

the light most favorable to the non-movant. Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist.,

233 F.3d 871, 874 (5th Cir. 2000). After adequate time for discovery, Rule 56(c)

“mandates the entry of summary judgment . . . against a party who fails to make

a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that

party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.”

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “We review a district court’s

discovery decisions for abuse of discretion and we will affirm such decisions

unless they are arbitrary or clearly unreasonable.” Moore, 233 F.3d at 876

(citing Krim v. BancTexas Group, Inc., 989 F.2d 1435, 1441-42 (5th Cir. 1993)).

III.

On appeal, Seiferth argues (1) that the district court’s conclusion was

collaterally estopped by the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Seiferth v. Helicopteros

Atuneros, Inc.; (2) the district court erred in concluding that Mississippi’s

Workmen’s Compensation Act barred his claims against Camus; and (3) that the

district court abused its discretion in denying his discovery request regarding

the alleged defective design of the work platform. We address these arguments

in turn.

Case: 09-60731 Document: 00511106450 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/10/2010
No. 09-60731

5

First, Seiferth argues that the “law of the case” doctrine and the principles

of res judicata and collateral estoppel prevented the district court from finding

that Seiferth’s claims against Camus were barred by the exclusive remedy

provisions of Mississippi’s Workmen’s Compensation Act because the prior Fifth

Circuit panel decision determined that Camus’s co-employee defense was

inapplicable. These arguments are without merit. “The law of the case doctrine

provides that an issue of law or fact decided on appeal may not be examined . . .

by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal.” Fuhrman v. Dretke, 442 F.3d

893, 896 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Similarly, collateral estoppel, or “issue preclusion,” bars the relitigation of

“issues actually adjudicated and essential to the judgment” in a prior litigation

between the same parties.” Kaspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Leco Eng’g & Machine,

Inc., 575 F.2d 530, 535-36 (5th Cir.1978). According to Seiferth, the Fifth Circuit

made a finding that “the co-employee defense is precluded” by virtue of its

statement that: “[i]n short, Camus is alleged to have directly participated in the

commission of a tort in Mississippi. It is immaterial whether he did so within

the scope of his Air 2 employment.” Seiferth, 472 F.3d at 272. The court made

this statement in the context of refuting Camus’s argument that the Mississippi

contacts he made through his employment could not be considered for the

purpose of establishing personal jurisdiction; it did not suggest that Camus’s

status as a co-employee was “immaterial” to Seiferth’s ability to ultimately

prevail on his claims. Indeed, the court never even reached the merits of the

case, as the opinion addressed only the issues of personal jurisdiction and

jurisdiction discovery. Thus, Seiferth’s arguments fail.

Seiferth also argues that the district court’s grant of summary judgment

was improper because material issues of fact existed as to whether Mississippi’s

Workmen’s Compensation Act bars Seiferth’s claims for relief where the

decedent died as a result of Camus’s actions in designing the mounted platform,

Case: 09-60731 Document: 00511106450 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/10/2010
No. 09-60731

Perkins, 799 F.2d at 959 (“[I]t is clear that under the Mississippi worker’s 2

compensation statute, an employee injured in the scope of his employment by the negligence

of a co-employee may not recover from the co-employee because workers’ compensation is the

injured employee’s exclusive remedy for work-related injuries against either his employer or

his employees.”); accord Medders v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 623 So. 2d 979, 984 (Miss. 1993);

McClusky v. Thompson, 363 So. 2d 256, 264 (Miss. 1978).

6

not from Camus’s actions in his capacity as an Air2 employee. This argument

is without merit. The Fifth Circuit’s prior decision in Seiferth held that the

district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Seiferth’s defective design claim

against Camus. See Seiferth, 472 F.3d at 277. Seiferth may not now attempt to

escape this ruling by transforming his defective- design claim into his claims for

negligence, negligence per se, and failure to warn. Consequently, we find no

error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment concluding that

Seiferth’s remaining claims against Camus are barred by the Mississippi

Workmen’s Compensation Act and the co-employee defense pursuant to Perkins

v. Insurance Co. of North America, 799 F.2d 955 (5th Cir. 1986).2

Finally, Seiferth argues that the district court erred by denying his motion

to compel discovery of documents “relating to design of the platform . . . and

communications with the Federal Aviation Administration.” We find that the

court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. See Moore, 233 F.3d at

876. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-60731 Document: 00511106450 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/10/2010