Opinion ID: 46155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: court dismissed the claims with prejudice.

Text: Plaintiffs’ son, Jonathan Mudrick, was fa- tally wounded when he was struck on the head II. by a steel anchor cable while working aboard We review a summary judgment de novo. a barge in Nikishi Bay, Alaska. His widow, Lee v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 34 F.3d 285, acting on behalf of herself, her children, and 288 (5th Cir. 1994). We conclude that the the estate, negotiated a mediated settlement of district court did not apply the correct legal $2,900,000.00 with Mudrick’s employer, standard governing summary judgment on an Cook Inlet Spill Prevention and Response, Inc. issue as to which the moving party bears the Both parties to the settlement agreed that, for burden of proof. purposes of the mediation, Mudrick was a Jones Act seaman. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and The Mudricks sued under the Texas the moving party is entitled to judgment as a Wrongful Death Act, alleging negligence, matter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). The strict liability, and breach of warranty. Defen- district court applied the standard in Celotex v. dants manufactured the stern anchor winch Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986), under that Mudrick was operating at the time of his which, in the district court’s words, “[t]he pardeath. The Mudricks seek only non-pecuniary ty moving for summary judgment bears the inidamages. tial burden of ‘informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those Defendants moved for the application of portions of [the record] which it believes demfederal maritime law and for summary judg- onstrate the absence of a genuine issue of ment that the decedent was a Jones Act sea- material fact’” (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at man. The district court granted the motion, 323). The non-movant must then present finding that Mudrick was a Jones Act seaman “specific facts showing there is a genuine issue as a matter of law. The court ruled that fed- for trial.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). eral maritime law applies because the injury The Celotex standard, however, is appro- priate only where, as in that case, the non-