Sharon Lovelace Blackburn

The case concerned the United States' challenge to multiple provisions of Alabama's House Bill 56 (the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act), which aimed to discourage illegal immigration through state-level enforcement measures. The United States sought a preliminary injunction against sections 10, 11(a), 12(a), 13, 16, 17, 18, 27, 28, and 30, contending that these provisions were preempted by federal immigration statutes and thus violated the Supremacy Clause. The court outlined the background of the Act's passage and temporary prior injunction, listed the specific challenged sections involving criminal penalties, employment restrictions, law enforcement verification requirements, contract enforcement limits, and education reporting, and applied the standard that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing of necessity before interfering with state law.

immigrationfederal powercriminal law

This case involves a lawsuit by Lester Brown against the Greene County Commission for wrongful termination, claiming that his firing violated his First Amendment rights after he spoke at a public commission meeting criticizing a proposed increase in solid waste disposal fees. The court considered the Commission's motion for summary judgment. The court denied the motion, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Brown's speech addressed a matter of public concern and whether the Commission's interests outweighed Brown's free speech rights under the Pickering balancing test.

free speechlabor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a plaintiff injured at work when a bar stool broke, leading her to file a workers' compensation claim against employer Lowe’s in state court along with product liability and negligence claims against L.G. Sourcing, the stool supplier. L.G. Sourcing removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds and moved to sever the workers' compensation count for remand to state court while keeping the remaining claims. The plaintiff later moved to remand the entire case, but the court denied that motion as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because it was filed more than thirty days after removal. The court granted severance and partial remand, holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) bars removal of workers' compensation claims but that subject-matter jurisdiction over the diverse tort claims could be retained once the timeliness deadline for objecting to removal had passed.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision in a dispute over priority of interests in Texas real property used as a car dealership. Twentieth Century had conveyed the property via an unrecorded warranty deed to a bankruptcy-remote entity that then mortgaged it to secure a loan later assigned to HSBC; after the borrower's bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to Twentieth Century. The district court reversed, holding that under Texas recording statutes and case law on bona fide purchasers, the dealership's visible possession and related affiliations did not automatically constitute inquiry notice sufficient to defeat HSBC's lien absent evidence that the lender knew or should have known of those facts. The court remanded for further proceedings applying the correct legal standards for notice and recording.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Cheng Ke Chen, a Chinese citizen detained by ICE at the Etowah County Jail since December 2010 pending removal to China. Chen sought release from custody, claiming his detention was unlawful because removal was not reasonably foreseeable, along with preliminary injunctive relief to prevent his removal and related declaratory relief. The respondents moved to dismiss, arguing that Chen was properly detained under immigration statutes pending deportation. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, denying the motions for injunctive relief and fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, granting the motion to dismiss, and dismissing the petition, on the grounds that requests for a stay of removal must be directed to the court of appeals and that the detention was authorized by statute without improper government delay triggering release.

immigrationfederal power

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order in a Chapter 13 proceeding that required debtors' attorney Tessie P. Clements to pay $1,200 to the trustee and disallowed part of her $850 fee based on disputes over whether she received undisclosed prepetition payments from the debtors and related disclosure issues under 11 U.S.C. § 329. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's ruling, finding that it had improperly placed the burden of proof on the attorney to disprove receipt of fees rather than requiring the administrator to establish a violation. The court further noted deficiencies in the record regarding the debtors' signatures on required documents but concluded that these did not support the sanctions imposed against the attorney.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Schlueter v. BellSouth Telecommunications, plaintiffs sued the defendant after it continued reporting a debt as due and payable despite the debt having been discharged in their bankruptcy, alleging that BellSouth furnished false information to a credit reporting agency. The complaint asserted one claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and six state-law claims, including deceptive trade practices, negligence, harassment, invasion of privacy, defamation, and misrepresentation. The court granted BellSouth's motion to dismiss, ruling that no private right of action exists under the FCRA to enforce a furnisher's duty to provide accurate information pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) and that the state-law claims were preempted by the federal statute. Plaintiffs had not alleged that they disputed the reporting with a consumer reporting agency or that any such agency contacted BellSouth.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a plaintiff's motion to remand a fraud action to state court following its removal to federal court on diversity grounds. The underlying complaint alleged that defendants defrauded the plaintiff through misrepresentations involving $400,000 in investment annuities, though the principal had been returned before suit, leaving claims primarily for $23,172.28 in surrender charges plus unspecified punitive damages and statutory attorney's fees. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The core reasoning was that the punitive damages claims, viewed in light of the alleged prolonged scheme targeting an elderly person's savings, could constitutionally support an award more than double the compensatory damages—sufficient to meet the minimum—without needing to rely on the refunded principal or attorney's fees.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved the Bessemer City Board of Education seeking a refund of penalties and interest assessed on unpaid federal employment taxes (Form 941) from 1997-1999, which it attributed to prior mismanagement; the board had paid the underlying taxes after a lien was filed and later paid over $1 million in penalties and interest before filing administrative refund claims. The board argued it qualified for intergovernmental tax immunity as a state agency, was not a "person" subject to penalties under IRC §§ 6671 and 6672, and could not act willfully. The court granted the United States' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), finding the claims insufficient under Twombly standards and additional arguments barred by the variance doctrine, while denying the board's motion to strike that defense.

taxesfederal power

This case involved Alabama residents who purchased a Hartford life insurance policy in 1995 after an agent represented that premiums would eventually vanish and no further payments would be needed; they later stopped paying but received a 1999 letter stating the option was not guaranteed and were later required to resume payments to keep the policy active. They sued Hartford and the agent in state court for fraudulent misrepresentation, suppression, and related claims. Hartford removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, arguing the non-diverse agent was fraudulently joined. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand and granted the agent's motion to dismiss, holding that claims against the agent were time-barred because the statute of limitations began running no later than October 1999 when plaintiffs received notice the premium waiver was not guaranteed.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Glenda Fowler sued Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company and its agent Teresa Marshall after Provident terminated her disability benefits under a policy purchased in 1992, asserting claims against Marshall for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and suppression based on statements about how claims would be handled. The defendants removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds, arguing that Marshall, a non-diverse Alabama resident like the plaintiff, had been fraudulently joined. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and granted the motion to dismiss the claims against Marshall, finding that those claims were either time-barred under Alabama's two-year statute of limitations or failed to state a viable cause of action because the policy language contradicted the alleged misrepresentations and no reasonable reliance was shown. As a result, the court disregarded Marshall's citizenship, established complete diversity with the remaining defendants, and retained jurisdiction over the case.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Ronald Dooley sued AutoNation USA Corporation under the Alabama Age Discrimination Act, claiming his 1998 termination from his role as a wholesale vehicle buyer was due to age discrimination. The court granted AutoNation's motion for summary judgment after reviewing evidence of the company's nationwide restructuring, cost-cutting layoffs, and policy changes that reassigned buyers to specific geographic districts and required them to be located near assigned stores. Dooley had been initially terminated when no suitable district assignment was available, received a severance agreement with a release of claims, was later rehired, and was terminated again for failing to relocate closer to his assigned store. The court found insufficient evidence to support a claim of disparate treatment or impact based on age, applying standards from federal employment discrimination precedents.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved an ERISA claim by plaintiff Franklin Stidham against Solutia, Inc. and Monsanto Company seeking enhanced pension benefits under a Special Program created after Monsanto's 1997 spin-off of its chemical business into Solutia. The program provided benefits only to employees whose positions were eliminated as a direct result of the separation, and Stidham, who voluntarily retired in October 1997 after being told his computer operator position would not be eliminated, was denied benefits. The Employee Benefits Plans Committee upheld the denial, finding that Stidham's retirement was voluntary and not tied to the spin-off. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the plan administrator's decision was not arbitrary or capricious because the administrative record supported that eligibility required involuntary termination resulting from the corporate separation, which did not occur here.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Glenda Heupel suing Trans Union LLC after her credit report contained inaccuracies, including a notation about a Chapter 13 bankruptcy on a joint account with her ex-husband and duplicate Fidelity accounts, which contributed to the denial of her Discover credit card application. She alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act for failing to maintain accurate records under § 1681e(b), failing to reinvestigate disputes under § 1681i, and state-law defamation. The court granted Trans Union's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that Heupel had not disputed the Dial Bank account in her reinvestigation letter, Trans Union promptly deleted the disputed items upon notice, there was no evidence of negligent or willful noncompliance with reasonable procedures, and the defamation claim failed for lack of malice or willful intent.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Bailey v. Allgas, Inc., plaintiffs P. David Bailey and Doris Bailey sued defendants Allgas, Inc., its parent and related companies, and its president, alleging that Allgas engaged in predatory pricing by dropping residential propane gas prices in the Altoona, Alabama area to drive Bailey's new competing propane business out of the market, in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, the Alabama Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Alabama Motor Fuel Marketing Act, and constituting tortious interference; plaintiffs also claimed resulting default on an SBA loan after their business failed in 1995. The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the testimony of plaintiffs' expert Gunther and their motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that Gunther's expert analysis was unreliable and inadmissible under Daubert standards because it failed to properly define a relevant geographic or product market, relied on flawed methodology for assessing market power and anticompetitive effects, and did not account for other competitors or actual market data, leaving plaintiffs without sufficient evidence to support any of their claims.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a surety company, Frontier Insurance, seeking to recover payments it made on labor and material bonds issued for a construction company, International, Inc., along with related expenses from International and its indemnitors, the Tuckers. Frontier filed a motion for summary judgment based on a General Agreement of Indemnity that required the defendants to reimburse the surety for claims paid under the bonds. The court granted the motion, awarding Frontier $122,913.46 plus interest, after finding no genuine issues of material fact. The reasoning centered on the contract terms allowing Frontier to determine claims in good faith, with its payments serving as prima facie evidence of liability that the defendants did not sufficiently rebut.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves claims by Dr. Richard L. Chalal against Northwest Medical Center for terminating his medical staff privileges after peer reviews identified clinical incidents and competency concerns during his provisional appointment period. The court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment, primarily based on immunity provided by the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA). The core reasoning was that the hospital followed required procedures, including proctorship, Executive Committee review, a formal hearing, and final board action, satisfying HCQIA standards for immunity from damages liability. Other claims, including antitrust allegations under the Sherman Act, were dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Holland, defendant Holland moved to dismiss a charge of continuing criminal enterprise murder under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that the underlying drug conspiracy to distribute marijuana and cocaine was the same offense for which he had already been tried and placed in jeopardy. The court explained that prior precedent treating a drug conspiracy as a lesser included offense applies only to charges of engaging in a CCE under § 848(a), not to the distinct CCE-murder offense under § 848(e). It further reasoned that § 848(e) creates a separate substantive crime with its own elements, supported by statutory language, structure, and legislative history, rather than merely enhancing penalties for a CCE violation. Accordingly, the conspiracy charge did not merge into or bar the CCE-murder prosecution.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Lewis Dean Powell, who faced a superseding indictment with two counts of using a computer and modem on America Online to attempt to entice persons under 18 (known online as 'SassyN14' and 'PINALA') into sexual acts prosecutable under state law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), plus five counts of transporting individuals under 18 from Alabama to Florida for sexual activity violating Florida law, under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Powell moved to dismiss, contending that the § 2422(b) counts failed to state an offense due to factual or legal impossibility because the targets were actually adult undercover agents. The court denied the motion after reviewing the record and magistrate's recommendation, ruling that Eleventh Circuit precedent from United States v. Oviedo requires evaluating the defendant's objective acts to determine if they strongly corroborate criminal intent, rendering the agents' true ages irrelevant at the indictment stage, and that the charges otherwise tracked the statutory elements.

criminal law

In this case, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in Alabama state court against Blockbuster Video, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment from excessive late fees on video rentals and seeking compensatory damages plus injunctive relief to stop the practice. Defendants removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, prompting plaintiffs to move for remand on the ground that the amount in controversy did not exceed the $50,000 threshold. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the value of the requested injunctive relief could be aggregated across the class because the plaintiffs shared a common and undivided interest in it, and that this aggregated value far exceeded the jurisdictional minimum. The decision relied on Eleventh Circuit precedent allowing aggregation in class actions where claims involve such interests, and noted the potential revenue impact on Blockbuster from continuing the late-fee policy.

procedurebusiness & regulatory