IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 00-30837 Summary Calendar _____________________

E.N. BISSO & SON, INC.; BISSO OFFSHORE, LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

TRINITY MARINE GROUP, INC.; HALTER MARINE, INC.; HALTER MARINE GROUP, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans USDC No. 99-CV-1225-B _________________________________________________________________ December 27, 2000

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The defendants, Halter Marine, Inc., et. al. (“Halter”),

appeals the denial of their request for assessment of costs against

the plaintiff, E.N. Bisso & Son, Inc. (“Bisso”), pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. Bisso initially filed suit

against Halter seeking damages for breach of contract. Prior to

trial, Halter extended an Offer of Judgment to Bisso for $14,000.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Bisso rejected the offer. After a trial before the district court,

judgment was entered fully in favor of the defendant. In its

judgment of March 27, 2000, the court ordered each party to bear

its own costs. Halter’s Rule 68 motion for costs against Bisso was

thereafter denied.

Because Supreme Court precedent and Fifth Circuit case law

clearly establish that a Rule 68 assessment of costs pursuant to a

rejected Offer of Judgment applies “only to judgments obtained by

the plaintiff,” and because the plaintiff Bisso obtained no

judgment in this case, we affirm the district court’s denial of

Halter’s Rule 68 motion. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August,

,

(1981) (finding that Rule 68 was “simply

inapplicable to this case because it was the defendant that

obtained the judgment”). See also Louisiana Power & Light Co. v.

Kellstrom,

(5th Cir. 1995) (noting that “[i]f a

plaintiff takes nothing, however, Rule 68 does not apply”).

Therefore, the judgment of the district court is

A F F I R M E D.

2