Tellez v. Chios Sea Shpg Trdg, et al

* Circuit Judge of the Sixth 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 00-30446
_______________________
MARIA DEL SOCORRO TELLEZ,
a personal representative of Oscar Manuel Tellez Perez
and as the natural tutrix of Hael Tellez Parra,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHIOS SEA SHIPPING & TRADING S A;
HARBOR SHIPPING & TRADING CO S A; SUNRISE SHIPING CO INC,
in personam; CHIOS SEA MV, her engines,
apparel and furniture, in rem,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
District Court Docket Number: 00-CV-67-F
_________________________________________________________________
January 12, 2001
Before KENNEDY*, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:**
This case presents the novel question whether the next-
of-kin of a deceased Nicaraguan seaman is bound by the foreign
forum selection clause contained in the seaman’s contract of

-- 1 of 2 --

1 Oral argument in this matter had been set for January 8, 2001. On
December 29, 2000 counsel or record for the appellant moved to withdraw from the
case. Because appellant was in the process of terminating or had terminated her
relationship with her attorney in Miami, who in turn discharged counsel in this
court, counsel’s motion to withdraw was granted.
employment when bringing a wrongful death action against the
seaman’s employer. The last-minute withdrawal of appellant’s
counsel precluded oral argument in the case.1 However, having
considered appellant’s position in light of the briefs and
pertinent portions of the record we find no reversible error of
fact or law in the district court’s decision to enforce the forum
selection clause. This decision is limited to the facts as they
were developed before the district court, which are not dispositive
of any broader ruling on the central issue raised by this
litigation. On this limited basis, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --