Cox v. Nabors Drilling USA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
m 02-40477
Summary Calendar
_______________
TERRY L. BUCKLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
NABORS DRILLING USA, INC.,
AND
NABORS OFFSHORE CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellants.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
_______________
m 02-40478
Summary Calendar
_______________
PHILLIP COX,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
NABORS DRILLING USA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant,
NABORS OFFSHORE CORPORATON,
Appellant.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
_____________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
m G-01-CV-623
_____________________________
October 8, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and
CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., and Nabors Off-
shore Corporation (together referred to as
“Nabors”) appeal the denial of a motion to
compel arbitration and to stay proceedings
pending arbitration under §§ 3 and 4 of the
Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The district
court denied the motion on the ground that the
arbitration provisions in question are exempted
by § 1 of the FAA as contracts of employment
involving seamen. In the alternative, the court
held that even assuming the FAA is applicable,
Nabors failed to establish the existence of a
valid arbitration agreement.
We pretermit comment on the district
court’s decision concerning the proper scope
of § 1, because resolution of that complicated
issue is unnecessary in this case. Even if the
district court is right to say that the arbitration
provisions are exempted, Nabors failed to raise
or argue the district court’s alternative holding
as an issue in its opening brief and thus waived
its arguments on that point.
Nabors mentions the issue only in its reply
brief. Arguments raised for the first time in a
reply brief are waived, and we will not address
them. Cavallini v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 44 F.3d 256, 260 n.9 (5th Cir. 1995).
Therefore, the judgment is AFFIRMED on the
ground that Nabors failed to establish the ex-
istence of a binding agreement between the
parties.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has
determined that this opinion should not be pub-
lished and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

-- 2 of 2 --