Filed: Jun. 24, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: Case: 09-20611 Document: 00511151545 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 23, 2010 No. 09-20611 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk BARNA CONSHIPPING, S.L., Plaintiff - Appellant v. COMMERCIAL METALS CO, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CV-163 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* After studying the b
Summary: Case: 09-20611 Document: 00511151545 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 23, 2010 No. 09-20611 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk BARNA CONSHIPPING, S.L., Plaintiff - Appellant v. COMMERCIAL METALS CO, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CV-163 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* After studying the br..
More
Case: 09-20611 Document: 00511151545 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 23, 2010
No. 09-20611 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
BARNA CONSHIPPING, S.L.,
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
COMMERCIAL METALS CO,
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:09-CV-163
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
After studying the briefs, hearing argument, and reviewing the record, we
conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. Specifically, the
appellant’s complaint fails to allege, first, any facts sufficient to show
abandonment, see Adams v. Unione Mediterranea di Sicurita,
220 F.3d 659, 671
(5th Cir. 2000); second, it has failed to establish that it is a party to or third-
party beneficiary of any maritime contract that would give it a maritime lien, see
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-20611 Document: 00511151545 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2010
No. 09-20611
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby,
543 U.S. 14, 31-32 (2004). The judgment of the
district court is therefore
AFFIRMED.
2