Stephen Marshall GABARICK, etc.; et al, Plaintiffs v. LAURIN MARITIME (AMERICA), INCORPORATED; et al, Defendants; Whitefin Shipping Company Limited, As owner and Managing Owner of the M/V Tintomara, Petitioning for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability; Laurin Maritime (America), Incorporated, As Owner and Managing Owner of the M/V Tintomara, Petitioning for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability; Laurin Maritime AB; Anglo-Atlantic Steamship Limited, Petitioners-Appellee-Cross Appellants v. DRD Towing Company, L.L.C., Claimant-Appellee v. American Commercial Lines, L.L.C., Appellant-Cross-Appellee; American Commercial Lines, L.L.C., As Owner of Barge DM-932, Praying for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability, Petitioner-Appellant Cross-Appellee v. Laurin Maritime AB; Whitefin Shipping Company Limited; Anglo Atlantic Steamship Limited; Laurin Maritime (America), Incorporated, Movants-Appellee-Cross Appellants DRD Towing Company, Incorporated, as Owner Pro Hac Vice or Alleged owner Pro Hac Vice of the M/V Mel Oliver, Petitioner-Appellee v. American Commercial Lines, L.L.C., Claimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Laurin Maritime AB; Whitefin Shipping Company Limited; Anglo Atlantic Steamship Limited; Laurin Maritime (America), Incorporated, Movants-Appellee-Cross Appellants American Commercial Lines, L.L.C., As Owner of the M/V Mel Oliver Praying for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability, Petitioner-Appellant-Cross Appellee v. Laurin Maritime (America), Incorporated; Laurin Maritime AB; Whitefin Shipping Company Limited; Anglo Atlantic Steamship Limited, Movants-Appellee-Cross Appellants

Stephen Marshall GABARICK, etc.; et al, Plaintiffs v. LAURIN MARITIME (AMERICA), INCORPORATED; et al, Defendants. Whitefin Shipping Company Limited, As owner and Managing Owner of the M/V Tintomara, Petitioning for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability; Laurin Maritime (America), Incorporated, As Owner and Managing Owner of the M/V Tintomara, Petitioning for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability; Laurin Maritime AB; Anglo-Atlantic Steamship Limited, Petitioners-Appellee-Cross Appellants v. DRD Towing Company, L.L.C., Claimant-Appellee v. American Commercial Lines, L.L.C., Appellant-Cross-Appellee. American Commercial Lines, L.L.C., As Owner of Barge DM-932, Praying for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability, Petitioner-Appellant Cross-Appellee v. Laurin Maritime AB; Whitefin Shipping Company Limited; Anglo Atlantic Steamship Limited; Laurin Maritime (America), Incorporated, Movants-Appellee-Cross Appellants DRD Towing Company, Incorporated, as Owner Pro Hac Vice or Alleged owner Pro Hac Vice of the M/V Mel Oliver, Petitioner-Appellee v. American Commercial Lines, L.L.C., Claimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Laurin Maritime AB; Whitefin Shipping Company Limited; Anglo Atlantic Steamship Limited; Laurin Maritime (America), Incorporated, Movants-Appellee-Cross Appellants American Commercial Lines, L.L.C., As Owner of the M/V Mel Oliver Praying for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability, Petitioner-Appellant-Cross Appellee v. Laurin Maritime (America), Incorporated; Laurin Maritime AB; Whitefin Shipping Company Limited; Anglo Atlantic Steamship Limited, Movants-Appellee-Cross Appellants. No. 12-31109. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Jan. 10, 2014. Glenn G. Goodier, Richard David Bertram, Esq., Jones Walker LLP, New Orleans, LA, John A.V. Nicoletti, Esq., Terry Lee Stoltz, Esq., Nicoletti, Hornig & Sweeney, New York, NY, for Petitioner-Appellant Cross-Appellee. David B. Lawton, Esq., Senior Attorney, Michael Mackenzie Butterworth, Esq., Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P., Hugh Ramsay Straub, Raymond Timothy Waid, Trial Attorney, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioners-Appellee-Cross Appellants. Randolph Jean Waits, John Francis Emmett, I, Waits, Emmett & Popp, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Claimant-Appel-lee/Petitioner-Appellee. Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:] PER CURIAM: We have considered the thorough briefing, heard oral argument, and analyzed the extensive record in this case. For substantially the reasons set forth in the well-reasoned opinion of the district court, we AFFIRM. 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.