Callie V. Granade

The case involved a property owner who sued the City of Prichard, Alabama, after the city demolished her vacant house in 2006 pursuant to a nuisance abatement ordinance and later used the lot as a police department parking area. The plaintiff asserted claims for trespass, Fifth Amendment taking, due process violation, fraud, negligence, wantonness, and failure to provide honest government. The court granted the city's motion for summary judgment on all claims except the trespass claim based on the parking lot use, finding that the city had followed statutory notice procedures under Alabama Code § 11-53B-1 and Ordinance 1912, that the plaintiff had received actual notice of the hazard and demolition orders, and that due process requirements were satisfied since she had an opportunity to object. The court denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and allowed the parking-related trespass claim to proceed because the city's use of the property after demolition lacked authorization.

propertycivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from a dispute between the South Dallas Water Authority and a contractor (W.D. Wainwright & Sons) over the breach of a construction contract for water main improvements, along with a performance bond issued by The Guarantee Company of North America USA. After the Authority sued the contractor and surety in Alabama state court, the surety removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the Authority's motion to remand the case to the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama, because the removing defendant had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 at the time of removal. The court also denied the Authority's request to tax costs and expenses against the defendant. The core reasoning focused on the timing and sufficiency of the defendant's jurisdictional showing under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 and related precedents.

procedure

The case involved J & M Associates suing AIG and various agents for breach of contract, negligence, wantonness, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy after J & M enrolled in a VEBA welfare benefit plan using AIG life insurance policies, which resulted in large tax liabilities and penalties. The district court addressed AIG's amended motion for summary judgment, focusing on whether claims were timely and whether J & M could show reasonable reliance on plan documents or agent statements. The court applied a two-year statute of limitations to the fraud and wantonness claims and found that the plan documents clearly disclosed the relevant risks and rights, precluding reasonable reliance. It also noted that J & M had consulted its own advisors and rejected analogies to cases involving less clear documents. As a result, the court granted summary judgment to AIG on the remaining claims against it.

business & regulatorytaxestorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, a deaf and mentally disabled plaintiff sued Dollar General Corporation and its store manager after an incident in which the manager called police while the plaintiff was in the store restroom, leading to officers using pepper spray, a taser, and force that caused injury during his arrest on charges including resisting arrest. The plaintiff alleged negligence and wantonness by the defendants for failing to unlock the door, communicate his disabilities to police, or otherwise handle the situation appropriately, along with a separate claim for failure to train or supervise employees. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissing with prejudice the claim against the manager for negligent or wanton failure to train managers and employees, while denying the motion to dismiss as to the other claims. The court reasoned that the remaining negligence claims were adequately pled under Alabama law and that issues like foreseeability of the police actions were not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss without further factual development.

civil rightstorts & liability

This case arose from disputes between two sisters renting a mobile home and Kenneth Walker, a city councilman who purchased the property in 2008, involving incidents such as Walker allegedly grabbing one plaintiff, destroying her plants, and disputes over rent and eviction proceedings. The plaintiffs brought twelve claims, including § 1983 civil rights violations for unlawful seizure and false arrest, state-law claims for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, and specific tort claims for conversion and assault against Walker. The court denied summary judgment on Dianna Alston’s conversion and assault claims against Walker due to genuine issues of material fact regarding those incidents but granted summary judgment on all remaining claims, finding insufficient evidence to support constitutional violations, municipal liability, or other state-law elements. The decision rested on review of affidavits, prior testimony, and the absence of disputed facts or legal support for the other counts.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liabilityproperty

This case arose from an injury sustained by Emil Harris, a pipefitter, who fell from a ledge in a cargo hold of the vessel M/V Vinland SAGA while it was undergoing repairs at Harrison Brothers' shipyard. J. Gregory Carwie, as conservator, sued the vessel owner Knudsen for negligence in state court; Knudsen responded in federal court with a complaint seeking exoneration or limitation of liability under admiralty law, while also asserting counterclaims against Harrison Brothers for indemnity or contribution. Harrison Brothers and Carwie filed cross-motions for summary judgment centered on whether Harrison Brothers was immune from tort liability under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) as the employer or borrowing employer, and whether Knudsen had breached duties regarding vessel hazards. The court granted Harrison Brothers’ motion for summary judgment on immunity grounds, denied Carwie’s motion, and granted Knudsen’s motion in part while denying it in part, reasoning that the LHWCA barred the tort claims against the repair yard and that factual disputes remained regarding the vessel owner’s active control over the area and related duties.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This admiralty case arose after TransMontaigne Product Services arrested the M/V Wilbur R. Clark and Barge HANNAH-7701 to enforce a maritime lien for fuel and supplies, prompting several other creditors to intervene with claims for repairs, towing, and necessaries. Century Services LP, assignee of a bank's recorded First Preferred Fleet Mortgage on the vessels, moved for partial summary judgment to establish its lien. The district court granted the motion, holding that the mortgage documents had been properly executed, amended, recorded with the Coast Guard, and assigned to Century, creating a valid preferred mortgage lien under federal maritime law.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the United States seeking a civil monetary penalty against Thu Nguyen for the importation of counterfeit purses and wallets. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, finding Nguyen liable for the penalty. It struck portions of Nguyen's affidavit as a sham because it contradicted his deposition testimony and other evidence showing he had knowledge of the shipment and claimed ownership of the goods. The decision was based on uncontroverted evidence that Nguyen received shipping documents and was involved in processing the counterfeit items into the country.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a dispute between Parsons & Whittemore Enterprises Corp. (P&W) and Cello Energy, LLC along with related Boykin defendants over negotiations and agreements for a synthetic fuel technology venture, including a nondisclosure agreement, option agreement, and letter agreement. P&W moved for partial summary judgment on the Boykin defendants' counterclaim alleging fraud, breach of contract, bad faith, and reformation. The court granted the motion in part, denied it in part, and found it moot in part: it denied summary judgment only on whether certain financing comments constituted fraudulent misrepresentation, granted it on claims like breach of contract and bad faith due to lack of evidence of breached terms or separate good-faith duties, and ruled the reformation and rescission requests moot because the option and letter agreements were already void while granting on the fraud-based reformation aspect. The decision applied standard summary judgment rules requiring no genuine issues of material fact and viewed evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movants.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Wilson v. Tillman, plaintiff John Wilson sued several Mobile police officers and city officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Alabama tort law, alleging excessive force and failure to intervene or supervise during an October 2005 traffic stop that escalated into an arrest involving tasers, physical strikes, and dragging. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants. On the federal claims, the court held that the officers' actions were reasonable under the circumstances or entitled to qualified immunity because any constitutional violation was not clearly established. On the state claims, the officers received discretionary-function immunity under Ala. Code § 6-5-338 because their conduct was not shown to be malicious or in bad faith, and the supervisory defendants lacked any personal involvement or knowledge of the incident.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In this diversity case, Southern Electric Corp. sued the Utilities Board of Foley (Riviera Utilities) for breach of contract and statutory penalty interest after delays in a power-line installation project allegedly caused by untimely materials and flawed pole-location plans prepared by Riviera's agent; Riviera countersued for breach based on Southern Electric's late or defective performance. The court granted Southern Electric's motion for summary judgment on the enforceability of the contract's liquidated-damages clause, granted Riviera's motion as to the penalty-interest count, and denied both sides' remaining summary-judgment requests. It reasoned that the liquidated-damages provision was valid and enforceable, that the statutory interest claim failed as a matter of law, and that genuine factual disputes remained on the breach claims and on whether Riviera had impliedly warranted the engineering plans under the Spearin doctrine and related precedent.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a barge and the vessel it carried breaking loose from moorings during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, striking structures along the Mobile River and causing property damage claims by multiple parties. The barge owner, Atlantic Marine, sought exoneration from or limitation of liability under admiralty law and moved for summary judgment, arguing the breakaway resulted from an unforeseeable act of God or intervening negligence by the charterer. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether the incident was foreseeable given prior storm concerns, inadequate mooring maintenance, and the known unpredictability of hurricane winds exceeding forecasts. It concluded that the charterer's alleged negligence was not so extraordinary as to absolve the owner and that summary judgment was inappropriate on the evidence presented.

torts & liabilityprocedure

John Santini sued his former employer, Cytec Industries, after his 2006 termination in connection with the sale of Cytec's water treatment business unit to Kemira, asserting claims of age discrimination and retaliation under Alabama law, breach of an employment agreement, and an ERISA violation for denial of severance benefits. Cytec moved for summary judgment on all counts and had asserted a counterclaim for unjust enrichment and breach of contract regarding benefits received. The court granted Cytec summary judgment on the age discrimination claims (Counts One, Two, and Three) and the ERISA claim (Count Five) but denied it on the breach of contract claim (Count Four), while finding the counterclaim moot because it was not reasserted against the amended complaint; the rulings rested on the evidence regarding the reasons for termination, the terms of the asset purchase agreement, and the nature of the benefits at issue.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a Dubai company, Argo, that purchased a vessel in Mobile, Alabama, and arranged through insurance broker DSI for tow-risk coverage to India; the vessel sank during the voyage after developing a list, and the underwriters denied the claim citing unseaworthiness and weather issues outside survey parameters. Argo sued DSI for negligence and negligent misrepresentation in obtaining the coverage, after the court had already dismissed the underwriters for lack of personal jurisdiction. Following a bench trial, the court ruled for DSI, finding that the broker had fulfilled its duty of reasonable care by securing the requested coverage based on the survey and communications, with no evidence that it failed to obtain suitable terms or misrepresented the policy terms. The decision rested on the facts that the port change and vessel condition were not attributable to DSI's actions and that coverage had been bound under the held-covered clause.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff Robbin L. Thompson's claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act, alleging disability from migraine headaches, depression, lumbar strain, and related pain. The Administrative Law Judge denied the claim after finding that Thompson retained the residual functional capacity for light work and could perform her past relevant jobs. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, reversing and remanding the Commissioner's decision because the ALJ's discounting of the treating physician's opinions was not supported by substantial evidence. The core reasoning focused on the need to evaluate credibility and limitations using more than just objective medical tests, given that conditions like migraines cannot be confirmed through laboratory evidence.

healthcareprocedurefederal power

The case involves a plaintiff who alleged that defendants misappropriated his confidential novel idea by obtaining a patent on it without his knowledge or consent, asserting eight state-law claims including conversion, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The defendants removed the action from Alabama state court to federal district court, arguing that the claims raised substantial questions of federal patent law regarding inventorship and patent scope, thereby creating federal question jurisdiction. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that federal jurisdiction was lacking because the well-pleaded complaint relied exclusively on state law, and resolution of the claims did not necessarily depend on a substantial question of federal patent law, as the patent itself was merely evidence of the alleged misappropriation rather than central to the rights asserted.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

In Brewer v. Commissioner, the plaintiff sued the IRS Commissioner alleging common-law torts such as fraud and harassment, constitutional violations including due process and free speech issues, improper seizure of Social Security benefits, and seeking damages plus an injunction against assessment and collection of federal income taxes for multiple years. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claims for damages arising from torts, constitutional violations, and certain statutory provisions like 26 U.S.C. § 7433 and 28 U.S.C. § 2410, finding no waiver of sovereign immunity. However, it denied dismissal of the claim seeking to enjoin tax assessments and collections for 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, determining that the Anti-Injunction Act might not bar the suit if the plaintiff had not received required deficiency notices, allowing that portion of the case to proceed.

taxesfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a taxpayer suing the IRS Commissioner for common law torts like fraud and harassment, due process and equal protection violations, and improper seizure of social security benefits in connection with disputed federal income tax liabilities and levies for years including 1999 through 2004. The plaintiff moved for leave to file a second amended complaint to add IRS employees as defendants and assert additional constitutional claims under Bivens as well as a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The court granted the motion only insofar as it added the United States as a party but denied all other requested amendments, concluding that Bivens remedies are unavailable in the federal tax collection context because Congress has provided alternative remedial mechanisms and that the conspiracy claim failed to allege the required racial or class-based discriminatory animus.

taxesfederal powercivil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Richard Phillips, who suffered foot burns while operating a 1998 Honda ATV and sued multiple Honda entities under Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine, negligence, wantonness, and warranty theories, alleging the vehicle's engine generated unsafe heat. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after excluding the testimony of the plaintiff's treating physicians and physical therapist (as fact witnesses whose causation opinions lacked personal knowledge) and an engineering expert (for failure to meet disclosure and reliability standards). The core reasoning was that without admissible evidence establishing a product defect, causation, or a safer alternative design, the plaintiff could not support any of his claims, regardless of the legal theory asserted.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Dickinson v. Springhill Hospitals, Inc., an African-American nursing assistant sued her former employer under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that her termination was due to racial discrimination because white employees who violated work policies were not fired. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff was terminated for violating the call-in procedure and that the cited white employees had not committed the same violation. The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue of material fact because the plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting her claims of disparate treatment or discriminatory intent, and the employer had presented a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the termination.

civil rightslabor & employment