Filed: Nov. 24, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-20452 OCEAN SHIPS, INC., Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, VERSUS AHMAD SHABRAWY, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-97-CV-200) November 19, 1999 Before DAVIS, JONES and MAGILL1 Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:** We affirm the district court’s order determining that the plaintiff shipowner fulfilled its obligation to pay maintenance and cure to Shabrawy
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-20452 OCEAN SHIPS, INC., Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, VERSUS AHMAD SHABRAWY, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-97-CV-200) November 19, 1999 Before DAVIS, JONES and MAGILL1 Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:** We affirm the district court’s order determining that the plaintiff shipowner fulfilled its obligation to pay maintenance and cure to Shabrawy ..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-20452
OCEAN SHIPS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,
VERSUS
AHMAD SHABRAWY,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-97-CV-200)
November 19, 1999
Before DAVIS, JONES and MAGILL1 Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:**
We affirm the district court’s order determining that the
plaintiff shipowner fulfilled its obligation to pay maintenance and
cure to Shabrawy for the following reasons:
1. The district court did not commit clear error in crediting
the testimony of the physicians called by the shipowner and finding
that Shabrawy had achieved maximum cure.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Shabrawy’s untimely motion to amend his suit to seek relief under
1
Circuit Judge of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
**
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
the Jones Act and the general maritime law.
3. Shabrawy waived his argument that the court had no
personal jurisdiction over him. Although he raised the defense in
his answer, he did not assert it in the pretrial order or otherwise
bring it to the attention of the district court during the course
of this litigation. See Continental Bank v. Meyer,
10 F.3d 1293,
1297 (7th Cir. 1993).
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
refusing to transfer this case to the Southern District of New
York.
5. We have considered Shabrawy's remaining arguments and
conclude that they have no merit.
AFFIRMED.
2