Bodden v. Natl Petro Const Co
Bodden v. Natl Petro Const Co
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ____________________
No. 99-31220 ____________________
WALLACE BODDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ABU DHABI UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, ET AL
Defendants,
NATIONAL PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ABU DHABI UNITED ARAB EMIRATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
___________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans ____________________________ November 17, 2000
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges, and WOOD, Jr.*, Senior Circuit Judge.
* Honorable Harlington Wood, Jr., Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation. 99-31220 Page 2
PER CURIAM:**
Wallace Bodden filed a maritime personal injury action in state court against the
National Petroleum Construction Company, Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates (“NPCC”).
The NPCC removed to the district court, asserting jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1330as
a foreign state pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (“FSIA”),
28 U.S.C. §§ 1601- 1611. The district court granted NPCC’s motion to dismiss on the basis of
NPCC’s immunity from jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1604. Bodden appeals. We
affirm.
Bodden was on a barge tender which was working in tandem with a derrick barge
owned and operated by NPCC and Abu Dhabi Marine Operating Co. (“ADMO”).1 The
two barges were located in the Persian Gulf within the territorial waters of Abu Dhabi.
NPCC is a corporation under the laws of Abu Dhabi. Based on a document similar to
articles of incorporation, the district court determined that 70% of the NPCC’s stock is
owned by Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. (“ADNOC”). Plaintiff concedes that ADNOC is
owned directly by the government of Abu Dhabi. The district court found that NPCC
was entitled to immunity as a foreign state under
28 U.S.C. § 1603, which provides:
** 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
1 In an order dated October 12, 1999, the district court found that ADMO was an Abu Dhabi corporation with a majority of its shares held by the government of Abu Dhabi and was immune from jurisdiction of the United States courts. 99-31220 Page 3
(a) A “foreign state”, . . .includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection (b). (b) An “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” means any entity– (1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and (2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof . . . .
Bodden asserts that indirect ownership by a foreign state is not sufficient to
qualify an entity for foreign state status. In Delgado v. Shell Oil Co., No. 95-21074 (5th
Cir. Oct. 19, 2000), this circuit held that “the majority ownership requirement for an
entity to qualify as a ‘foreign state’ under FSIA is satisfied by tiered or indirect majority
ownership to the same extent that it is satisfied by direct ownership.” We therefore
AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of NPCC.2
2 In his brief, Bodden also argued that the district court’s dismissal of his claims as time-barred under a one-year prescription must be corrected. This argument is moot as the district court has already corrected itself. In its order of June 9, 1999, the district court, characterizing the complaint as a “delictual” action, found the claim to be time-barred under Louisiana’s one year statute of limitations, due to the fact that the alleged incident occurred on May 23, 1997, and the complaint was filed on October 13, 1998. However, in its order of October 12, 1999, the district court stated that its previous determination of prescription “under Louisiana law was premature,” and conceded that the possibility of applying general maritime law existed. 99-31220 Page 4
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished