Patricio Zamora v. Lorance Bodden


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-41257 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JLW , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 10/05/2010 [09-41257]

Download PDF
Patricio Zamora v. Lorance Bodden Doc. 0 Case: 09-41257 Document: 00511233108 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED September 14, 2010 N o . 09-41257 S u m m a r y Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk P A T R I C I O ZAMORA, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t , v. L O R A N C E W. BODDEN, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lle e . A p p e a l from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas G a lv e s t o n Division U S D C No. 3:07-CV-00090 B e fo r e JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* A t issue is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment, d is m is s in g Zamora's maritime and Jones Act claims for lack of subject-matter ju r is d ic t io n . We agree with the district court that there was no jurisdiction. F u r t h e r m o r e , we also agree with the district court that to the extent that there 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 09-41257 Document: 00511233108 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2010 No. 09-41257 a r e any remaining claims over which the court has jurisdiction, they are u n t im e ly . Accordingly, we AFFIRM. T h is case arises out of personal injuries that Zamora sustained on August 1, 2003 w h ile working on a boat for the Bodden Shrimp Company (BSC). Zamora sued BSC for his in ju rie s , and, on August 16, 2004, he obtained a final judgment against the company. Z a m o ra , however, could not recover from BSC because BCS had filed for bankruptcy under C h a p te r 7. With that avenue for recovery closed, Zamora filed this action on February 13, 2 0 0 7 against Lorance W. Bodden on the theory that he was the alter ego of BSC. T h is court reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, a p p ly in g the same standard as the district court. Ford Motor Co. v. Tex. Dep't of T r a n s p ., 264 F.3d 493, 498 (5th Cir. 2001). Summary judgment is proper when " t h e pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits s h o w that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Z a m o r a argues that there is federal-question jurisdiction because he seeks t o collect an award (on an alter-ego theory) rendered in a prior admiralty case.1 P u t differently, he believes that the court in this collection action can derive its fe d e r a l jurisdiction from the earlier lawsuit. The Supreme Court, however, has r e je c t e d this argument, explaining that such claims must have independent g r o u n d s for federal jurisdiction. See Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 356 (1996) (" [C ]la im s alleged to be factually interdependent with and, hence, ancillary to c la im s brought in an earlier federal lawsuit will not support federal jurisdiction o v e r a subsequent lawsuit."). Insofar as there are any remaining claims supported by federal ju r is d ic t io n , they are barred by the three-year statute of limitations that is a p p lic a b le to personal-injury claims arising out of a maritime tort. See Pretus v. D ia m o n d Offshore Drilling, Inc., 571 F.3d 478, 481 (5th Cir. 2009) (citations 1 There is no diversity jurisdiction because the parties are both Texas residents. 2 Case: 09-41257 Document: 00511233108 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/14/2010 No. 09-41257 o m it t e d ). Here, the limitations period began on August 1, 2003, when Zamora s u s t a in e d his injuries. After accounting for tolling on two occasions, the district c o u r t correctly concluded that the limitations period expired on December 9, 2 0 0 6 . Because Zamora did not file his complaint until February 13, 2007, his c la im s are barred. A F F IR M E D . 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?