Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Lost Lake is a small, privately owned inland body of water in Louisiana that connects seasonally to the Atchafalaya River. In January 2020, crawfishermen Devin Thibodeaux and Herby Angelle attempted to fish at Lost Lake and were cited for trespassing after landowner Seth Bernhard called police. The Fishermen sued the Bernhard family and their LLC for conversion and unlawfully preventing the harvest of crawfish.
The Bernhards moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but the district court found that Lost Lake was a navigable waterway supporting admiralty jurisdiction and denied the motion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling in 2024, finding that Lost Lake has historically supported commercial crawfish harvesting on small watercraft, that its seasonal connection to the Atchafalaya River coincides with peak commercial viability, and that it connects to the river through a drainage canal ten to twenty feet wide. Thibodeaux v. Bernhard, No. 23-30405, 2024 WL 3181458 (5th Cir. June 26, 2024).
On remand, the district court granted the Bernhards’ summary judgment motion and dismissed the Fishermen’s claims with prejudice on the merits, declining to revisit the jurisdictional question despite new evidence the Bernhards offered. The Bernhards then filed a Rule 60(b)(1) motion arguing the district court erred by not addressing their new jurisdictional evidence. The district court denied the motion, and the Bernhards appealed — seeking to use Rule 60(b) to undo an admiralty jurisdiction finding they feared would invite future federal lawsuits by trespassers.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of the Rule 60(b)(1) motion, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Applying the eight-factor framework from Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1981), the court found that the balance of factors weighed decisively against the Bernhards. The court emphasized that final judgments should not be lightly disturbed and that Rule 60(b) cannot serve as a substitute for a direct appeal — particularly where, as here, the Bernhards filed their motion after the time for appealing the summary judgment ruling had already expired.
The court also noted that the Bernhards’ newly proffered jurisdictional evidence was substantively a repackaging of arguments already considered and rejected by both the district court and the Fifth Circuit in the prior appeal. Rule 60(b)(1) is not a vehicle to relitigate facts and arguments that could have been raised in the original proceeding. Because summary judgment is a judgment on the merits, and because the Bernhards had ample opportunity to present their case at that stage, the court found no basis for relief.
The court further observed an unusual posture: the Bernhards were actually the prevailing party below, having obtained dismissal of the Fishermen’s claims with prejudice. Their appeal was motivated not by an adverse ruling but by concern that the admiralty jurisdiction precedent established in the prior Fifth Circuit decision would expose them to future federal suits by other trespassers. The court found that this speculative future prejudice did not outweigh the present victory or justify disturbing the final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 60(b)(1) cannot be used to extend the time for appeal or to relitigate jurisdictional arguments that were already raised and decided on the merits in earlier proceedings.
- A party who prevails on the merits at summary judgment lacks a sufficient basis to seek Rule 60(b) relief simply because the court declined to rule in its favor on an alternative ground — speculative future prejudice does not satisfy the standard.
- The Fifth Circuit’s 2024 holding that Lost Lake supports federal admiralty jurisdiction remains intact; the seasonal connection to the Atchafalaya River during peak crawfishing season is sufficient to establish navigability for admiralty purposes.
- Under the Seven Elves framework, the policy favoring finality of judgments and the prohibition on using Rule 60(b) as a substitute for appeal will typically outweigh timeliness and liberal-construction factors when a party seeks to revisit a merits ruling.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the strict limits on post-judgment relief under Rule 60(b)(1) in the Fifth Circuit, particularly where a party attempts to relitigate a jurisdictional question that has already been adjudicated on appeal. Attorneys should advise clients that losing on a threshold issue in appellate proceedings — even while ultimately prevailing on the merits below — does not preserve a path to revisit that issue through Rule 60(b) after appeal deadlines have passed.
The case also has practical significance for Louisiana property owners whose land abuts waterways within the Atchafalaya Basin. The affirmed admiralty jurisdiction finding means that tort claims arising from activities on seasonally connected inland waters may be litigated in federal court, even when those waters sit entirely on private property. Landowners and their counsel should account for this exposure when advising on trespass and property rights matters in the region.