Mark E. Fuller

The case arose from Alabama homeowners' claims against State Farm and its agent for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, and negligent supervision after the insurer denied coverage for wind damage to a boat dock under a 1996 policy. Defendants removed the action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the Alabama agent had been fraudulently joined because he played no role in selling the policy and that plaintiffs' deposition testimony established more than $75,000 in controversy through lost property value. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the undisputed facts showed fraudulent joinder and that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met by a preponderance of the evidence.

proceduretorts & liability

In McCall v. Montgomery Housing Authority, a tenant of Section 8 federally subsidized housing brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the local housing authority and several employees, alleging violations of her due process rights and federal housing law under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, along with related Alabama state law claims for breach of contract and negligence arising from an attempted termination of her benefits. The court addressed motions for summary judgment from defendant Clevette Ellis and from the authority along with defendants Hester and Harris. Applying the standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the court granted Ellis's motion in full due to lack of factual or legal basis for claims against her, and granted the other motion in part and denied it in part where genuine disputes of material fact remained on certain claims.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned K.I., a student with arthrogryposis and other medical conditions, whose parents challenged an administrative ruling that Montgomery Public Schools had provided her a free appropriate public education under the IDEA by placing her in a self-contained school for medically fragile children rather than a mainstream setting. The parents sought reversal of that decision along with relief under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, claiming inadequate evaluations, lack of assistive technology, insufficient academic and self-care services, and failure to offer mainstreaming or timely homebound instruction. The district court granted the school district’s motion in part and denied it in part, denied the parents’ motion for partial summary judgment on the Section 504 claims, and granted in part and denied in part the parents’ motion to reverse the administrative decision, finding that the record supported some but not all of the hearing officer’s conclusions regarding the least restrictive environment and offered services.

civil rights

This case arose from a fatal car collision during a high-speed police pursuit on U.S. Highway 231, where officers including Ozark Police Sergeant Jimmy Culbreath chased suspect Ronald Charles Pugh in the wrong direction on the highway after attempting a warrantless search, resulting in Pugh's vehicle striking and killing Charles Edward Knight. The plaintiff, as administratrix of Knight's estate, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the decedent's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights against Culbreath and the City of Ozark, plus related state-law tort claims, asserting that the officers' reckless actions and municipal policies caused the crash. The court granted the motion to dismiss filed by Culbreath and the City of Ozark, holding that Culbreath was entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims because he acted within his discretionary authority without violating clearly established constitutional rights and that state-agent immunity barred the tort claims against both defendants.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved employees of Alabama's Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation suing the Department in state court for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, with the suit later removed to federal court. The Department moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity as a state agency. The court granted the motion, ruling that the Department was entitled to immunity from private FLSA damages suits and that its voluntary removal of the case did not waive that immunity under existing Eleventh Circuit precedent. The core reasoning was that the Eleventh Amendment bars federal jurisdiction over such claims against unconsenting states, and the court declined to broaden the limited Lapides waiver rule to this situation where the state had not already consented to suit in its own courts.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

The case involves an employment dispute in which plaintiff Claude Short, a white American male formerly employed as Quality Director at defendant Mando American Corporation (MAC), alleged race and national origin discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and related state-law tort claims arising from his demotion, transfer, and eventual termination. MAC moved for summary judgment, contending that Short's performance issues with Korean-managed suppliers and his refusal to accept a relocation package justified the employment actions. The court granted summary judgment to MAC on the § 1981 claims to the extent they were based on national origin, holding that the statute does not authorize such claims. It also accepted MAC's articulation of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the demotion/transfer and termination decisions, noting that Short failed to create a triable issue of pretext. Various evidentiary motions to strike were addressed in connection with these rulings.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case arose from Sanjanetta Barnes's 2008 arrest for disorderly conduct after she experienced pain from ovarian cysts while walking home, interacted with city employees and police, was transported to a hospital, and faced trial before Judge Gordon. Barnes sued the City of Dothan, police officials, and the judge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging false reports, failure to train or supervise, and a conspiracy to violate her civil rights on the basis of race. On motions to dismiss, the court granted Judge Gordon's motion and dismissed her from the case on grounds of judicial immunity, dismissed official-capacity claims against the individual defendants, but denied the motions in other respects, allowing personal-capacity claims against the officers and the City to proceed. The court reasoned that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to state plausible § 1983 claims that were not time-barred and were not subject to dismissal at this stage under Twombly and Iqbal standards.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

Dr. Aleda T. Cyprian, an African-American woman formerly employed as Dean of Student Affairs at Auburn University at Montgomery (AUM), sued AUM and her supervisor Dr. Katherine Jackson under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging racial discrimination, a racially hostile work environment, and retaliation for complaining about discrimination that led to her termination. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact on any of the claims. For the discrimination claim, Cyprian could not identify similarly situated white employees treated more favorably, and AUM provided legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its actions that were not shown to be pretextual. The hostile work environment claim failed because the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive, and the retaliation claim lacked evidence of a causal connection between protected activity and adverse actions.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case arose from a $6 million construction contract between Glenn Construction and Bell Aerospace for a helicopter hangar project in Alabama, with BWSC serving as the project engineer; Glenn Construction asserted claims for breach of contract, negligence, wantonness, fraud, and intentional interference based on disputes over project supervision, change orders, site conditions, payments, and delays. The district court considered several motions, primarily the defendants' motions for summary judgment along with related evidentiary challenges regarding expert affidavits and supplementation. The court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed on key points, such as whether Glenn Construction breached its payment obligations to subcontractors or failed to provide required affidavits, because evidence could show that extra work stemmed from BWSC's conduct or that documentation had been supplied, precluding summary judgment on those grounds under Alabama law.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the administratrix of Coleman Zatarain's estate against truck driver Dericka Blockett and his employer Swift Transportation, Inc., following a fatal rear-end collision on Highway 231 in Alabama in 2007. The plaintiff alleged state-law claims including negligence, wantonness, negligent entrustment, and negligent hiring and supervision. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish negligence or wantonness and that Zatarain was contributorily negligent. The court denied the motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the speeds of the vehicles, the circumstances of the accident in a construction zone, and whether Zatarain's actions constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Freeman v. Koch Foods of Alabama, an African-American employee alleged that her employer denied her transfers to HR positions, failed to reinstate her after FMLA leave, disclosed her breast cancer diagnosis, and created intolerable working conditions leading to constructive discharge, bringing claims of race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge under the FMLA, ADA, Title VII, and § 1981. The court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment in full while partially granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint and the motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie cases for several claims, did not rebut the employer's legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its actions such as lack of experience or position availability during leave, and did not show objectively intolerable conditions sufficient to support constructive discharge.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Robert C. Smiley, an African American male employed as a civil engineer by the Alabama Department of Transportation, sued his employer and several supervisors alleging race discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation based on a supervisor's alleged restrictions on his workplace conduct, unwarranted discipline, and denial of transfer requests. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after analyzing subject-matter jurisdiction, pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the scope of claims under Title VII, Section 1981, and Section 1983.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a claim by David Johnson against his employer, The Montgomery Advertiser, under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unlawful retaliation. Johnson alleged that he was terminated because he repeatedly complained to management about the newspaper's practice of not allowing employees to report overtime hours worked. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Johnson failed to demonstrate that his termination was retaliatory. The decision was based on evidence of Johnson's ongoing performance issues and disciplinary actions, which provided a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for his dismissal that he did not sufficiently rebut.

labor & employment

In this case, a nursing home facility sued Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama in Alabama state court, alleging state-law claims including breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment arising from the insurer's coverage and payment decisions for services provided to enrollees in its Medicare Advantage plans. The insurer removed the action to federal court, arguing that the claims either arose under the Medicare Act, were completely preempted by federal law, or were in substance claims under the False Claims Act. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the claims were not completely preempted, did not present a substantial federal question, and did not otherwise confer federal subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The decision rested on the distinction between ordinary preemption and complete preemption, as well as the risk-shifting structure of Medicare Part C plans that left the insurer, rather than the federal government, financially responsible for the benefits at issue.

healthcarefederal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved the State of Alabama suing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and related federal defendants to invalidate a 2008 "Dear State Health Official" letter on Medicaid funding procedures. Alabama contended that the letter was a substantive rule requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, which had not occurred. The court found jurisdiction proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and granted Alabama summary judgment. It held that the letter created new rights and obligations rather than merely interpreting existing law, rendering it unlawful for failure to follow APA procedures.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

Cheri Kintz sued her employer United Parcel Service alleging sex and disability discrimination under Title VII and the ADA after a 2004 workplace foot injury led to repeated medical leaves, work restrictions, and disputes over route assignments and uniform policies involving her ankle brace. UPS moved for summary judgment, and the court reviewed evidence including medical records, deposition testimony, collective bargaining provisions, and Kintz's interactions with supervisors regarding accommodations and discipline. The court granted the motion, concluding there was no genuine dispute of material fact supporting the discrimination or failure-to-accommodate claims under the applicable legal standards.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a negligence claim by Margaret Barker against Dollar General after she was injured by falling detergent bottles in one of its stores. Barker sued in Alabama state court seeking $75,000 in damages, and Dollar General removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The court granted Barker's motion to remand, finding that the defendant failed to prove to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, as required when the complaint specifies damages, relying on the plaintiff's denial of a request for admission and limited medical bills.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involves Margorie Lawrence suing her former employer, Christian Mission Center, for alleged sex discrimination after she was hired to counsel residents at a recovery facility and was later terminated amid rumors of sexual misconduct with a male resident. Lawrence brought claims under Title VII for hostile work environment, retaliation, and sex discrimination, plus state-law claims for invasion of privacy, defamation, and negligent supervision. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss five of the six counts, dismissing the hostile work environment claim because the complaint lacked facts showing the rumors affected her differently because of her sex, but allowing the retaliation claim to proceed based on her pre-termination emails complaining about the employer's handling of the rumors. The sex discrimination claim was not subject to the motion, and the court applied the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard while accepting well-pleaded facts as true.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved the United States suing multiple defendants, including Lori Williams, under the Fair Housing Act for alleged sex discrimination in rental housing, claiming that her agent Jamarlo Gumbaytay subjected female tenants to sexual harassment and that Williams was liable as principal or due to her knowledge and failure to act. Williams moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed on some claims of agency and liability while resolving others as a matter of law based on the evidence presented regarding Williams's ownership, management, and awareness of the conduct. The decision applied the summary judgment standard requiring the nonmoving party to designate specific facts showing a triable issue after the movant met its initial burden.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

This case involves Bank of America seeking to collect on a defaulted $3.78 million loan from Gordhanbai Patel as guarantor for Montgomery Hospitality, LLC, an Alabama-based hotel owner. Patel moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, contending his limited contacts with Alabama were insufficient. The court denied the motion after finding that Patel's position as member and acting manager of the Alabama LLC, his execution of the guaranty containing an Alabama choice-of-law clause, his ownership interests in multiple Alabama entities, and related business activities satisfied Alabama's long-arm statute and established minimum contacts for specific personal jurisdiction without offending due process.

procedurebusiness & regulatory