Court Opinion

ID: 9384186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-01 00:00:53.547872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:51.182611
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20372     Document: 00516697466         Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/31/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit

                                                                            FILED
                                  No. 22-20372                        March 31, 2023
                                Summary Calendar
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk

   Bret Bynum,

                                                           Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                       versus

   Ingram Barge Company; Marquette Transportation
   Company, LLC,

                                                         Defendants—Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:21-CV-3346

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Appellant Bret Bynum brought an action in October 2021 seeking an
   award for salvaging two barges that broke free from their moorings in August

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Case: 22-20372        Document: 00516697466            Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                        No. 22-20372

   2017.       The district court dismissed the action as barred by 46 U.S.C.
   § 80107’s two-year limitations period. Bynum timely appealed.
           This court reviews de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss an
   action for failure to state a claim. Jebaco, Inc. v. Harrah’s Operating Co.,
   587 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009). “A motion to dismiss may be granted on
   a statute of limitations defense where it is evident from the pleadings that the
   action is time-barred, and the pleadings fail to raise some basis for tolling.”
   Taylor v. Bailey Tool Mfg., 744 F.3d 944, 946 (5th Cir. 2014).
           Bynum’s sole argument on appeal is that he brought an “admiralty
   action for salvage,” which is distinct from a “civil action for salvage.” His
   claim is therefore not subject to Section 80107’s limitations period because
   that provision only applies to civil actions.
           This argument confuses jurisdiction with action. Admiralty is a type of
   jurisdiction. See, e.g., U.S. CONST. Art. III, § 2 (extending federal judicial
   power “to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction”). In contrast,
   there is only “one form of action—the civil action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 2.
   Congress has thus provided federal district courts original jurisdiction over
   any “civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1);
   see also Nolan v. Boeing Co., 919 F.2d 1058, 1066 (5th Cir. 1990) (“In federal
   practice, the terms ‘case’ and ‘action’ refer to the same thing, i.e., the
   entirety of a civil proceeding.”).             This case is therefore properly
   characterized as a civil action in admiralty jurisdiction.
           Section 80107(c) of Title 46 applies to all “civil action[s] to recover
   remuneration for giving aid or salvage services.” Its applicability does not
   depend on the type of jurisdiction invoked by the litigant.1 Bynum’s civil

           1
           See 8 David J. Bederman, BENEDICT ON ADMIRALTY § 13.08 (2022); accord Am.
   S.S. Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass’n v. Dann Ocean Towing, Inc., 756 F.3d 314, 318 (4th

                                              2
Case: 22-20372       Document: 00516697466             Page: 3      Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                        No. 22-20372

   action to recover a salvage award thus falls squarely within the statute’s
   bounds. It therefore must have been “brought within 2 years after the date
   the aid or salvage services were given.” 46 U.S.C. § 80107(c).
           It is undisputed that Bynum did not bring this action to recover
   remuneration for salvage services within two years of performing those
   services. His claim is consequently time-barred.
                                           * * *
           For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is
   AFFIRMED.

   Cir. 2014) (indicating Section 80107(c)’s limitations period applies to maritime salvage
   actions).

                                              3