This case involves a premises liability claim brought by plaintiff Cook against Wal-Mart after she slipped and fell on a banana peel in the store's parking lot. Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish the store had actual or constructive notice of the hazard. The court applied federal summary judgment standards under Rule 56 and Alabama substantive law on premises liability, noting that while evidence of constructive notice was thin, disputes of material fact remained that could allow a reasonable jury to find for the plaintiff. The court therefore denied the motion, concluding that the better course was to proceed to trial rather than resolve the notice issue on the existing record.
Eddie D. Powell, an Alabama death row inmate scheduled for execution, filed a § 1983 action alleging that the Alabama Department of Corrections' switch from sodium thiopental to pentobarbital as the first drug in its lethal injection protocol violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 claims. The court determined that the limitations period had begun to run before Powell filed his complaint, based on the timing of the protocol change and prior related litigation.
In Powell v. Thomas, death row inmate Jason Oric Williams intervened in an existing case to seek a stay of his May 19, 2011 execution, challenging only Alabama's substitution of pentobarbital for sodium thiopental as the first drug in the three-drug lethal injection protocol under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted intervention but denied the stay motion. Williams did not contest his death sentence or lethal injection as a method but claimed insufficient assurance of constitutional compliance with the new drug. The court held that Williams failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, that the claim was filed too late to allow full consideration without a stay, and that equitable factors including the state's interest in enforcing its judgments weighed against relief.
This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which Johnson Outdoors sued Navico for allegedly infringing four patents related to boat-mounted side-scan sonar imaging systems used to locate fish and underwater structures. Navico filed affirmative defenses and counterclaims seeking declarations of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability, asserting that Johnson Outdoors engaged in inequitable conduct by making material misrepresentations and withholding information from the PTO during patent prosecution. Johnson Outdoors moved to strike and dismiss certain defenses and counterclaims, arguing they failed to meet the particularity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that some inequitable conduct allegations lacked the required specificity while others—particularly those involving prior art references on towfish and boat-mounted transducers—were sufficiently pleaded under controlling Federal Circuit standards.
In Lewis v. Blue, plaintiff Cynthia Lewis sued Deputy Jason Blue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he used excessive force during her arrest and conducted an unlawful search and seizure in her home in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court granted the deputy’s motion for summary judgment after reviewing the record, finding no genuine issues of material fact that would preclude judgment as a matter of law under the standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The decision rested on the conclusion that the deputy’s actions during the arrest and any subsequent entry were consistent with applicable Fourth Amendment principles, including consent doctrines such as those in United States v. Matlock, and that the plaintiff had not produced sufficient evidence to support her claims.
The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Thomas Entrekin as executor of Edith Entrekin's estate against medical providers and a nursing home, alleging negligence in altering her Coumadin medication regimen after her heart attack, which led to inadequate anticoagulation, a fatal blood clot, and her death in June 2008. Defendants moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act based on a dispute resolution agreement containing an arbitration clause that Mrs. Entrekin had signed upon admission to the facility, arguing it covered claims by her estate and personal representative. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding that Alabama's wrongful death statute vests the cause of action solely in the personal representative and that the decedent never possessed or could have possessed such a claim, so she lacked authority to bind the executor to arbitration. The executor had not signed the agreement in any capacity, and arbitration requires consent by the party to be bound.
