Filed: Aug. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 25, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-60949 Summary Calendar MARITRANS OPERATING PARTNERS, LP, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus PORT OF PASCAGOULA, Etc.; ET AL., Defendants, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (USDC No. 1:99-CV-577-BrR) _ Before REAVLEY, SMITH and STEWART, Circu
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 25, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-60949 Summary Calendar MARITRANS OPERATING PARTNERS, LP, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus PORT OF PASCAGOULA, Etc.; ET AL., Defendants, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (USDC No. 1:99-CV-577-BrR) _ Before REAVLEY, SMITH and STEWART, Circui..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
August 25, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60949
Summary Calendar
MARITRANS OPERATING PARTNERS, LP,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PORT OF PASCAGOULA, Etc.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi
(USDC No. 1:99-CV-577-BrR)
_______________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maritrans initiated this action against the government under the Suits in Admiralty
*
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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Act and the Oil Pollution Act after its barge Ocean 211 went aground in the Port of
Pascagoula on May 29, 1998. Maritrans appeals the district court’s finding on lost profits
and the court’s amending of its judgment five months after it was entered. We uphold the
latter action, but we vacate and remand for further proceedings on lost profits.
1. The shipowner is entitled to recover lost profits upon a showing that its
“vessel was active in a market ready for its services.” See In re M/V Nicole Trahan, 10
F.3d 1190, 1195 (5th Cir. 1994). Charles Gordon, Maritran’s manager of chartering,
testified that Maritrans participated “very heavily” in the Gulf of Mexico charter market
and that Ocean 211 was active in that market. Barge utilization reports showed that
Ocean 211 was idle for lack of work for only 6.45 days during calendar year 1998. In
May and June of that year there were no days in which Ocean 211 was idle for lack of
work. Maritrans had no idle tugs or other barges available during the period in which the
Ocean 211 was out of service. In fact, demand was so great that Maritrans leased a barge
from one of its competitors.
Uncontroverted proof that the shipowner’s vessel operated in an active market is
sufficient to establish lost profits. See Delta Steamship Lines, Inc. v. Avodale Shipyards,
Inc., 747 F.2d 995, 1001 (5th Cir. 1984); Skou v. United States,
526 F.2d 293, 298 (5th
Cir. 1976) (Skou II). The shipowner is not required to prove that it lost particular charters
because its vessel was out of service. See Skou v. United States,
478 F.2d 343, 346 (5th
Cir. 1973) (Skou I); Delta
Steamship, 747 F.2d at 1001; M/V Nicole
Trahan, 10 F.3d at
1195. The uncontroverted evidence established that there was a steady, uninterrupted
2
demand for Ocean 211 and the rest of Maritran’s fleet both before and after the
grounding. Maritrans therefore proved lost profits. See Skou II, 526 F.2d at 298 (“Most
clear . . . is the proof that [the vessel] was in immediate demand, as were her sister ships,
upon her return to service. This demonstrates ‘that profits may be reasonably supposed to
have been lost because the vessel was active in a ready market.’”) (quoting Skou
I, 478
F.2d at 344). The district court’s contrary finding is clearly erroneous.
At trial, Maritrans and the government offered competing estimates of the amount
of lost profits. Because the district court concluded that Maritrans was not entitled to lost
profits, it did not reach this question. We leave the issue of the amount of lost profits to
the district court on remand.
2. The district court may correct its judgment to comply with a statutory
prescription for prejudgment interest at any time under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). See, e.g.,
Aubin v. Fudala, 782 F.2d 287, 289-90 (1st Cir. 1986) (Breyer, J.); Hayden v. Scott
Aviation, Inc.,
684 F.2d 270, 271-72 (3d Cir. 1982). The district court in this case
properly amended its judgment to comply with the Suits in Admiralty Act, which
categorically limits prejudgment interest against the United States: “no interest shall be
allowed on any claim prior to the time when suit on such claim is brought . . . .” 46
U.S.C. app. § 745 (1975).
VACATED and REMANDED.
3
