In Re: River Cty Tow

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 8, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
Revised January 6, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 03-30195
__________________________
In Re: In the Matter of the Complaint of RIVER CITY TOWING SERVICES, INC, As
Owner of the T/B K700, for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability
------------------------------------
RIVER CITY TOWING SERVICES, INC, As Owner of the T/B K700
Petitioner,
SABRILLE ACKLIN, and other third-party plaintiffs as set forth in record document no. 90
Claimants - Third-Party Plaintiffs,
versus
FORMOSA PLASTICS CORP, also known as Formosa Chemical, doing business as
Formosa Chemical
Claimant - Third-Party Defendant - Appellant,
versus
THERESA ELLEN WILLIAMS; CRYSTAL SMITH; GERTRUDE TAYLOR; TYRON
MARTIN, SR; LINDA BARNEY; MICHAEL GREEN; EULA BATISTE; ROSE MARY
BRODEN
Claimants - Appellees.
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(No. 01-CV-1935-J)
___________________________________________________
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 2 --

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.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.
2
PER CURIAM:*
Formasa Plastics Corporation appeals the district court’s determination that it did not have
admiralty jurisdiction to hear this matter. Because the tort at issue here occurred on land and hence
fails the location test, the district court did not err in holding that it did not have admiralty jurisdiction
over the claims. See Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock, Co., 513 U.S. 527,
534 (1995). Furthermore, once the district properly dismissed all of the claims which may have led
to original jurisdiction, it did not abuse its discretion in refusing to exercise pendant jurisdiction over
the pending state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The decision of the district court is
therefore AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --