Filed: Mar. 08, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit _ No. 01-30609 No. 01-30682 _ GERARD MENDONCA, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS TIDEWATER, INC., Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans 00-CV-2284-C _ March 7, 2002 Before ALDISERT,* DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:** We affirm the judgment of the district court essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in its Orders and Reasons of March 21 an
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit _ No. 01-30609 No. 01-30682 _ GERARD MENDONCA, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS TIDEWATER, INC., Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans 00-CV-2284-C _ March 7, 2002 Before ALDISERT,* DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:** We affirm the judgment of the district court essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in its Orders and Reasons of March 21 and..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit ___________________________ No. 01-30609 No. 01-30682 ___________________________ GERARD MENDONCA, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS TIDEWATER, INC., Defendant-Appellee. __________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans 00-CV-2284-C ___________________________________________________ March 7, 2002 Before ALDISERT,* DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:** We affirm the judgment of the district court essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in its Orders and Reasons of March 21 and April 9, 2001 and by the magistrate judge in his Minute Entry of April 18, 2001. * Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third 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 ** Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Plaintiff-Appellant asserts an additional argument on appeal. He now seeks to assert state law claims based on diversity jurisdiction. Even if we were to consider this argument, raised for the first time on appeal, Plaintiff-Appellant did not allege facts in the district court sufficient to trigger diversity jurisdiction. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.