In the United States Court of Appeals

For the Fifth Circuit _______________

m 02-30197 _______________

ALICIA TANGUIS, ETC., ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

ALICIA TANGUIS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA; DONALD F. MANKIN, JR., ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA; GEORGE A. BARISICH, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA; MEDRIC MEYER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA; PRESTON SALTALAMACCHIA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

WESTCHESTER M/V, ET AL.,

Defendants,

WESTCHESTER M/V AND ERMIS MARITIME CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees. *******************************

IN THE MATTER OF: MARINE OIL TRADER 3 LIMITED, AS OWNER OF M/V WESTCHESTER PETITIONING FOR EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY; TRITON MARINE, S.A., AS MANAGER OF M/V WESTCHESTER PETITIONING FOR EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY; ERMIS MARITIME CORPORATION, AS MANAGER OF M/V WESTCHESTER PETITIONING FOR EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

*********************************

MARINE OIL TRADER 3 LIMITED, AS OWNER OF M/V WESTCHESTER; TRITON MARINE, S.A., AS MANAGER OF M/V WESTCHESTER; ERMIS MARITIME CORPORATION, AS MANAGER OF M/V WESTCHESTER,

Petitioners-Appellees,

VERSUS

ISTVAN ABONYI, ET AL.,

Claimants.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana m 01-CV-3559-N _________________________ December 10, 2002

2 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This is a putative state class action that was subsumed, on removal to federal court, by a limitation of liability action. The appellants as- sert error in the district court’s dismissal of potential claims. We have read the briefs and the applicable law, have heard the arguments of counsel, and have consulted pertinent por- tions of the record.

Because the limitation of liability action ter- minates appellants’ status as asserted class rep- resentatives, appellants have no standing to pursue this appeal on behalf of potential claim- ants. Because of the lack of standing, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal.

The appeal, accordingly, is DISMISSED.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has deter- mined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

3