William H. Steele

In Brown v. CitiMortgage, Inc., plaintiffs alleged that Citi violated the Truth-in-Lending Act by failing to provide timely notice after a mortgage assignment and sought only statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a). Citi moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) requires proof of actual damages. The court denied the motion, holding that the statute expressly permits recovery of statutory damages (twice the finance charge, subject to a $400-$4,000 range) in addition to or instead of actual damages. The court reasoned that the plain text of § 1640(a), supported by Eleventh Circuit precedent, allows statutory damages irrespective of actual damages or the amount of any finance charge incurred.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a pro se plaintiff who sued Western Express and Southern Refrigeration alleging race and age discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA, stemming from his 2008 termination for alleged falsification of an employment application related to a drug test and the dissemination of negative employment references in 2010 that prevented him from being hired by other trucking companies. After a status hearing where the plaintiff indicated a desire to dismiss his claims, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal, finding both voluntary dismissal and failure to state a claim, including lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies for the discriminatory discharge claims. The district court adopted the recommendation in full as its opinion, resulting in dismissal of all claims against the defendants.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves federal criminal charges against a defendant located in Louisiana for operating an internet bookmaking operation, including using interstate facilities to promote unlawful gambling under 18 U.S.C. § 1952, transmitting betting information via wire under 18 U.S.C. § 1084, and accepting proceeds from unlawful internet gambling under 31 U.S.C. § 5363. The charges stem from interactions with a confidential informant and undercover agent, where payments were sent via FedEx from Alabama to Louisiana and calls were made to an agent in Mobile, Alabama. The defendant moved to dismiss Counts Four and Five for lack of venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that venue was proper in the Southern District of Alabama under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) because the offenses involved interstate transportation that was begun, continued, or completed in the district. The court granted the motion to transfer under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b).

criminal lawprocedure

In Doe v. City of Demopolis, a minor plaintiff sued the city under Alabama Code § 11-47-190 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after a city police officer sexually assaulted her multiple times in 2006, alleging the city had notice of the officer's propensity and failed to take remedial action such as training or reassignment. The court granted the city's motion for summary judgment on the claims against it. It reasoned that there was no evidence the city acted with deliberate indifference to the risk or that any such indifference was the moving force behind the assaults, as the officer knew his conduct was illegal and the initial contact occurred outside his assigned duties. The court also indicated it would decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim against the officer individually.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case concerns Defenders of Wildlife's challenge to federal agencies' continuation of offshore oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill. Plaintiff alleged that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management violated NEPA, the ESA, and the APA by relying on a 2007 environmental impact statement without preparing a supplement, accepting bids on new leases, and failing to reinitiate endangered species consultations based on new information from the spill. The court considered overlapping motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) filed by the federal defendants and intervenors, evaluating whether the claims addressed final agency actions, provided adequate notice, and stated plausible violations. The opinion dismissed Claim Three for failure to state a claim and addressed related arguments on the remaining claims concerning past and ongoing lease activities.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Erica Mahan suing defendant Retrieval-Masters Credit Bureau under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for using a pseudonym in collection letters, falsely claiming prior written contacts about a debt, and failing to provide required disclosures about disputing the debt. The defendant moved to dismiss most claims under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing insufficient pleading and that the conduct did not violate the FDCPA. The court granted the motion only as to the request for declaratory relief, which the plaintiff conceded, but denied it as to the remaining FDCPA claims, finding the allegations plausible under Twombly/Iqbal standards and that using a false name and making misrepresentations about prior contacts could violate specific FDCPA provisions like § 1692e(14). The § 1692g claim was not challenged and thus proceeded. The ruling relied on accepting the complaint's facts as true and precedents interpreting the statute's prohibitions on deceptive practices.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This ERISA case concerns a former International Paper employee who sought disability retirement benefits under the company's plan after knee replacement surgery and chronic venous stasis causing leg swelling and pain. The plan denied the claim, finding based on medical reviews and a transferable skills analysis that the plaintiff could perform light-duty jobs such as router or order caller. On review, the court concluded that the plan's denial letters did not address the venous condition or the plaintiff's pain complaints, violating ERISA's requirement of a full and fair review. The court therefore remanded the matter to the plan administrator for further consideration instead of ordering an award of benefits.

labor & employment

The case involves a negligence claim by plaintiff Wade Smith against Norfolk Southern Railway Company for injuries from a 2007 vehicle-train collision, filed in Alabama state court on the final day of the two-year statute of limitations. After removal to federal court, the defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the claim was time-barred due to an over-one-year delay in perfecting service of process on its agent, caused by a mix-up where neither the plaintiff nor the clerk's office sent the certified mail. The court denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that a limitations defense is not apparent from the face of the complaint and that under Alabama law the filing tolled the period because the plaintiff demonstrated a bona fide intent to serve process immediately by providing all necessary documents and information to the clerk at filing. The opinion further notes that subsequent delays and lack of follow-up did not negate that intent or the proper commencement of the action.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Lewis Sharpe, an African-American employee, suing his employer Global Security International under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for race-based discrimination and retaliation. Sharpe alleged discriminatory pay, demotion, harder assignments, layoff, and delayed recall, plus retaliation for internal complaints and an EEOC charge. The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment, first addressing a motion to strike certain witness declarations on grounds of untimely disclosure, form, and hearsay. It overruled the nondisclosure objections after finding good-faith explanations and limited prejudice, then analyzed the claims by applying prima facie standards for discrimination and retaliation, concluding that the evidence supported the required elements including differential treatment in layoff and recall decisions.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Brokaw v. Weiser Security, plaintiff Kathy Brokaw, a former branch manager, sued her employer under Title VII for sex discrimination and retaliation and under the Equal Pay Act, claiming she received lower pay than her male predecessor, faced disparate treatment in wages and termination, and suffered retaliation for complaining about client discrimination. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The court granted the motion after reviewing the record, finding no genuine issues of material fact on the claims. For the Equal Pay Act claim, the court determined that the wage disparity was justified by a legitimate business reason—the reduction in branch revenue under the prior manager—and that no rational jury could find otherwise. On the Title VII claims, the court concluded that Brokaw failed to show the employer's proffered reasons were pretextual.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, insurer SUA filed a federal declaratory judgment action against its insured Classic Home Builders and others, seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Classic in a state-court lawsuit alleging that Classic built a home with defective Chinese drywall causing physical harm and property damage. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that SUA had not shown the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Because the state complaint sought indeterminate damages without a specific amount, the court applied a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard rather than the legal-certainty test and held that SUA failed to meet its burden, as it offered no concrete evidence of the costs of defense, remediation, or other claimed damages. The court therefore granted the motions and dismissed the action.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved an African-American employee suing her employer for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging she was paid less and received less vacation than a white colleague in the same position. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's. The reasoning was that the compensation differences stemmed from the employees' prior salaries and negotiation efforts rather than race, with the plaintiff not attempting to negotiate higher pay or benefits while the white employee did.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case arose from a workplace injury lawsuit in which nonparty Ronald White recovered a $5 million settlement from Holcim after falling at a cement plant operated by Holcim while working for contractor ISOM; Ohio Casualty, an insurer for ISOM, sought a declaration that Holcim was not entitled to coverage under ISOM's commercial umbrella policy for the settlement, while Holcim counterclaimed for breach of contract and indemnity. The court granted summary judgment to Ohio Casualty and ISOM. The core reasoning was that the policy's Cross Suits Exclusion barred coverage for liability of any insured to any other insured, and the Separation of Insureds clause did not alter the effect of exclusions using the phrase "any insured."

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved plaintiff Spectrum Collision, an auto repair shop, suing defendant GEICO for intentional interference with contractual and business relations under Alabama law, along with a request for injunctive relief. The dispute centered on GEICO's ARX Program, which required customers with drivable vehicles to take their cars to a designated shop (Cockrell’s) for inspection and to learn about repair options and benefits like on-site rentals and lifetime guarantees, before allowing them to choose another shop. The court granted GEICO's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence that the program caused customers to divert business from Spectrum, as most of Spectrum's witnesses had their repairs done there anyway and isolated incidents did not establish a pattern of improper steering or pressure. Spectrum's claims of inconvenience, lack of warranty, and other alleged misconduct were unsupported by the record or contradicted by GEICO's training and customer interactions.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved plaintiff PNCEF, LLC suing defendants Hendricks Building Supply, LLC and Hendricks Companies, Inc. for breach of a 2005 equipment lease agreement (with a cross-corporate guaranty), an open account, and replevin after the defendants failed to make required monthly payments. The court had previously entered defaults against both defendants, who never appeared or responded despite proper service and notice. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding $145,675.39 in damages plus authorization to repossess the equipment, based on the well-pleaded allegations establishing the lease, guaranty, default, and damages, along with supporting affidavits showing a sum certain without need for further hearing.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a wrongful death and products liability action under Alabama law brought by parents, as personal representatives of their deceased children, against Whirlpool, Lowe's, and Clarke-Washington Electric Membership Corporation after a house fire allegedly started by a defective air conditioner/heater unit. The plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint to replace specific negligence allegations against the non-diverse defendant Clarke with a new theory that Clarke supplied electricity despite actual knowledge of dangerous wiring conditions in the home. The court granted the motion to amend but denied the accompanying motion to remand to state court. The reasoning centered on the liberal standard for amendment under Rule 15(a), the rule that diversity jurisdiction and fraudulent joinder are evaluated based on the complaint at the time of removal, and the determination that the proposed amendment did not destroy the prior fraudulent joinder finding or require remand.

proceduretorts & liability

This case arose after plaintiffs Tyrone Hillery and Shelia Jones filed a claim with Allstate Indemnity Company for fire damage to their mobile home, which Allstate denied on grounds of material misrepresentations in the policy application and the insureds' alleged involvement in arson. The plaintiffs sued under Alabama law for breach of contract, bad faith, misrepresentation, suppression, and negligence in the handling of the claim. The court first resolved cross-motions to strike exhibits, applying the sham-affidavit rule and finding no inherent inconsistency that would require striking Hillery's affidavit. It then granted summary judgment to Allstate, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy a policy condition precedent by not submitting corrected personal-property inventory forms after agreeing to do so during an examination under oath, and that Alabama does not recognize a tort claim for negligent claims handling.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Page v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc., an African-American employee sued her employer and white supervisor under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging race discrimination and retaliation after she was demoted for violating cash-handling policies that led to a $1,000 loss from the store safe, while white managers were not disciplined. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It reasoned that there was no evidence of pretext or selective enforcement based on race, as the company consistently disciplined employees when policy violations caused significant financial losses and the plaintiff failed to show that white managers were similarly situated. The court also found no protected activity by the plaintiff herself to support the retaliation claim.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves a dispute between the Odoms and Southeast Supply Header, LLC (SESH) over the location of a natural gas pipeline installed on the Odoms' property pursuant to a 2007 easement agreement that referenced an existing adjacent easement. The Odoms brought claims for fraud, trespass, nuisance, and inverse condemnation, alleging the pipeline was deliberately placed in the wrong spot and created unusable land between the two easements; SESH counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment, reformation of the easement, and abuse of process. The court granted SESH's motion for partial summary judgment on the Odoms' claims and on Counts One and Two of the counterclaim. It reformed the easement to align with the parties' intent that it be contiguous with the existing Gateway easement and dismissed the tort and statutory claims, reasoning that the easement's reference to the pipeline centerline reflected a mutual mistake in drafting rather than any intent to deceive or trespass, and that the pipeline was installed within the permitted 50-foot right-of-way.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a dispute between First Financial Bank, a junior mortgagee, and CS Assets, LLC, a senior mortgagee, over the statutory redemption price for five parcels of real property in Alabama that CS Assets had foreclosed upon after the borrower's default. First Financial sought to exercise its right of redemption under Alabama Code §§ 6-5-247 et seq., but the parties could not agree on the calculation of the price, including elements such as the foreclosure purchase amount, interest, fees, late charges, and offsets for taxes or other parcels. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court interpreted the relevant Alabama redemption statutes and precedents to determine the proper components of the price, ultimately fixing it at a specific total and ordering payment into the court registry with provisions for any future adjustments.

property