Antill Pipeline Const Company

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [13-30102 Affirmed ] Judge: EHJ , Judge: JLD , Judge: CH; denying petition for writ of mandamus filed by Petitioner Antill Pipeline Construction Company, Incorporated [7278847-2] [13-30102]

Case: 13-30102

Document: 00512125487

Page: 1

Date Filed: 01/25/2013

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit

FILED
January 25, 2013

No. 13-30102

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

In re: ANTILL PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Petitioner

Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Antill Pipeline Construction Co., Inc. (Antill) petitions this
Court for an emergency writ of mandamus to stay proceedings below while it
pursues an interlocutory appeal against the district court’s dismissal of several
defendants from his limitation of liability suit pursuant to the Shipowners’
Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30505. Mandamus is available only in
those circumstances where there is a “clear and indisputable abuse of discretion
or usurpation of judicial power by the trial court.” In re Cajun Elec. Power
Cooperative, Inc., 791 F.2d 353, 365 (5th Cir. 1986). The case was initially
scheduled for trial on October 31, 2011. Antill filed a motion for leave to file a
third-party complaint against a new defendant, Hanko Metal Works,Inc., on
August 24, 2011. The district court granted the motion and continued trial.
*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-30102

Document: 00512125487

Page: 2

Date Filed: 01/25/2013

No. 13-30102
Although Hanko filed its answer on December 2, 2011, Antill did not depose
Hanko’s corporate representative until August 16, 2012. On May 21, 2012, Antill
filed a separate suit against two additional defendants, the estate of William
Voss and W&T Offshore, Inc., and then untimely moved to consolidate the two
proceedings on June 20, 2012, further delaying the proceedings. Nonetheless, the
court granted Antill’s motion for consolidation. Trial was set for January 28,
2013. Although the district court issued its order dismissing several defendants,
including Hanko Metal Works, Voss’ estate, and W&T Offshore on December 6,
2012, Antill waited until January 21, 2013—one week prior to trial—to file its
motion for stay. Although the district court promptly denied this motion on
January 22, 2013, Antill did not file its motion for mandamus until January 24,
2013, a mere four days—less than two business days—before trial was set to
begin. Antill’s petition, if granted, would further delay a trial that Antill has
already caused to be delayed numerous times. Under these circumstances we
cannot say that the district court clearly abused or usurped its judicial power in
denying the petitioner's motion for continuance and stay of the proceedings.
The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.

Judge Jones would grant the petition.

2