Background
Lost Lake is a small, privately owned inland body of water in Louisiana that seasonally connects to the Atchafalaya River. In January 2020, Devin Thibodeaux and Herby Angelle attempted to crawfish at Lost Lake. Seth Bernhard, one of the property owners, summoned police, and the fishermen were cited for trespassing. They subsequently sued the Bernhards for conversion and unlawful interference with crawfish harvesting.
The Bernhards moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the dispute did not arise in navigable waters sufficient to support federal admiralty jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, finding Lost Lake a navigable waterway, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed in a prior appeal. That prior decision rested on three findings: Lost Lake has historically been used for commercial crawfish harvesting on small watercraft; its seasonal connection to the Atchafalaya River coincides with the most commercially viable crawfishing period; and it connects to the river through a ten-to-twenty-foot-wide drainage canal. Thibodeaux v. Bernhard, No. 23-30405, 2024 WL 3181458 (5th Cir. June 26, 2024).
Back before the district court, the Bernhards moved for summary judgment and again challenged jurisdiction with newly proffered evidence. The district court granted summary judgment in the Bernhards’ favor on the merits and dismissed the fishermen’s claims with prejudice, but declined to revisit the jurisdictional question. The Bernhards then filed a Rule 60(b)(1) motion arguing the district court erred by ignoring their new jurisdictional evidence. The district court denied that motion, and the Bernhards appealed — seeking, despite having won on the merits, to eliminate the admiralty jurisdiction holding they feared would invite future federal suits by other trespassing fishermen.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the Rule 60(b)(1) motion, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Applying the eight-factor balancing test from Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1981), the court found the weight of factors ran against granting relief. Most significantly, the motion targeted a final summary judgment on the merits — not a default or procedural dismissal — and the Bernhards had been afforded ample opportunity to present their arguments at the summary judgment stage.
The court also emphasized that the Bernhards were improperly using the Rule 60(b)(1) motion as a substitute for a direct appeal of the summary judgment ruling, which they had allowed to become final without appealing. Their newly submitted jurisdictional evidence was characterized as 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) cannot be used to extend the time for appeal or to relitigate matters that could have been raised in the original proceeding.
Finally, the court noted the unusual posture: the Bernhards were seeking relief from a judgment entered in their own favor, motivated by concern about the precedential effect of the admiralty jurisdiction ruling. The court held that fear of future litigation based on the prior jurisdictional holding does not constitute sufficient prejudice to override the strong interest in finality, particularly where the Bernhards failed to mount their best jurisdictional case from the outset.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 60(b)(1) motions cannot serve as a vehicle to relitigate jurisdictional arguments already decided on the merits, even when a party presents new evidence framed in different terms.
- A party that fails to appeal a final summary judgment within the applicable time period cannot use Rule 60(b)(1) to effectively extend the appellate deadline.
- Winning parties lack a sufficient basis for Rule 60(b)(1) relief when their only grievance is that the court reached the correct outcome through reasoning they find unfavorable for future cases.
- Under Seven Elves, the balance between finality and justice strongly disfavors disturbing a judgment on the merits where the moving party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s strict limits on post-judgment relief under Rule 60(b)(1), making clear that the rule is not a second-chance mechanism for parties dissatisfied with the legal reasoning underlying an otherwise favorable ruling. Attorneys should advise clients that concerns about the precedential effect of an adverse legal finding — even one embedded in a winning judgment — must be addressed through a timely direct appeal, not a later collateral motion.
The case also has substantive significance for admiralty and maritime law in Louisiana. The Fifth Circuit’s prior affirmance in this litigation stands as precedent that federal admiralty jurisdiction can attach to small, seasonally navigable inland lakes within the Atchafalaya Basin that are commercially used for crawfishing. The Bernhards’ failure to dislodge that holding means it remains available to future plaintiffs seeking a federal forum for similar disputes on comparable Louisiana waterways.