Opinion ID: 69357
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Challenge on the Merits

Text: As plaintiffs acknowledged in their appellate briefing, this is not the first time that a court in this circuit has addressed precisely these issues between precisely these parties. Plaintiffs raised the same allegations in a complaint and third-party claims against the United States in a related action. In that action, the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that only the FTCA or AEA provided bases for jurisdiction and that plaintiffs had failed to meet the exhaustion requirements of those statutes. In re Complaint of Ingram Barge Co., 435 F. Supp. 2d 524 (E.D. La. 2006). After that dismissal, plaintiffs re-filed these same claims against the United States in an amended third-party complaint. The district court dismissed on the basis of res judicata. In re Complaint of Ingram Barge Co., Nos. 05-4419, 05-4237 (E.D. La. Jan. 16, 2007) (No. 490). Plaintiffs then filed a motion for reconsideration contending, among other things, that a letter submitted to the Army Corps of 1 The AEA’s administrative exhaustion requirement provides that “[a] civil action [against the United States] may not be brought until the expiration of the 6-month period after the claim has been presented in writing to the agency owning or operating the vessel causing the injury or damage.” 46 U.S.C. § 30101(c)(2). 3 No. 08-30963 Engineers that was virtually identical to the letter submitted in the present action met the exhaustion requirement. The district court concluded that the letter lacked sufficient detail to meet the exhaustion requirement and denied reconsideration. In re Complaint of Ingram Barge Co., Nos. 05-4419, 05-4237, 2007 WL 550060 (E.D. La. Feb. 15, 2007). This court affirmed these dismissals. Ingram Barge Co. v. Parfait Family (In re Complaint of Ingram Barge Co.), No. 08-30626, 2009 WL 2447716 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 2009). Plaintiffs’ counsel in the present case also filed substantially similar claims against the United States on behalf of different plaintiffs in the consolidated action. The district court dismissed these claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding, like the district court in Ingram Barge, that only the FTCA or AEA provided bases for jurisdiction and that plaintiffs had failed to meet the exhaustion requirements of those statutes. Berthelot v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., L.L.C., Nos. 05-4182, 06-1885, 2007 WL 1239132 (E.D. La. Apr. 27, 2007). This court affirmed the dismissal. O’Dwyer v. United States (In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig.), No. 07-30412, 2009 WL 1868980 (5th Cir. June 30, 2009). Plaintiffs’ appellate briefing in the present case was filed after the appeals were fully briefed in the above cases but before the Fifth Circuit opinions in those cases issued. In their briefing for the present case, plaintiffs asserted that the issues presented here are “virtually identical to and/or overlap with those already fully briefed” for the other Fifth Circuit panels and declined to further brief these issues. Plaintiffs urged instead that this panel incorporate by reference the arguments briefed in the other appeals, arguing “that it would serve no useful purpose to require [plaintiffs] to rebrief matters which have already been exhaustively briefed, several times over.” The appeals in the above cases have now been decided against plaintiffs. We find—as plaintiffs anticipated—that these panel opinions and the district 4 No. 08-30963 court opinions that they affirm address all of the issues that arise in the present case. We are bound by Ingram Barge, 2009 WL 2447716, which involved identical issues and parties, and find persuasive Katrina Canal Breaches, 2009 WL 1868980, which involved identical issues and reached the same result. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4 (unpublished opinions are precedential “under the doctrine of res judicata”).2 Based on these precedents, we affirm the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We also note that even if the present appeal involved issues other than those addressed in the panel opinions—and plaintiffs have not made such an assertion—these issues would be waived for failure to brief. Plaintiffs have not briefed any challenge to the district court’s ruling in the present case, choosing instead to incorporate by reference arguments made in the related cases. Arguments merely incorporated by reference are not properly considered on appeal. See Turner v. Quarterman, 481 F.3d 292, 295 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007) (refusing to consider arguments before the district court that plaintiff incorporated by reference on appeal, concluding that this was a failure to adequately brief); Katz v. King, 627 F.2d 568, 575 (1st Cir. 1980) (“If counsel desires our consideration of a particular argument, the argument must appear within the four corners of the brief filed in this court.”). Accordingly, plaintiffs have waived any arguments challenging the merits of the district court’s dismissal.