Karon O. Bowdre

The case involves Alabama Central Credit Union suing CUMIS Insurance Society in state court to recover under a fidelity bond for losses from an employee's improper loan approvals, along with claims against the employee Kiser for wanton conduct breaching his duties. Defendants removed the action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, contending Kiser was fraudulently joined. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and granted Kiser's motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims against him were time-barred by Alabama's two-year statute of limitations for tort claims under Ala. Code § 6-2-38. The court reasoned that the six-year limitations period for trespass to the person did not apply because the allegations involved neither personal injury nor a qualifying contract or specialty, leaving no possibility of recovery against the non-diverse defendant.

proceduretorts & liability

This case was a declaratory judgment action by Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company against the Mitchell family to determine coverage under an uninsured motorist policy for the death of Scott Mitchell, who was struck by an uninsured driver while working near a sanitation truck insured by Argonaut. The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment and granted the Mitchells' motion, ruling that Mitchell qualified as an insured. The core reasoning was that the policy defined "occupying" to include being in, upon, getting in, on, out or off the vehicle without requiring physical contact, and under Alabama law Mitchell was in close proximity to the truck and performing job duties associated with it at the time of the accident.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This ERISA case involved a dispute over disability benefits under an employee welfare plan, with the plaintiff challenging the applicable policy, benefit rate, and whether the insurer Sun Life held discretionary authority to decide claims. The court denied the plaintiff's motions to strike an affidavit, supplement the record or remand, and for partial summary judgment or judgment on the record, while granting the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment on all counts in the complaint. It found that the plan documents expressly conferred discretionary authority on the claims fiduciary (originally GE Group Life Assurance Company), which transferred through corporate name changes to Sun Life, and that the 60% salary benefit rate applied under the correct policy. The defendant's counterclaim for reimbursement was denied without prejudice due to insufficient detail on the relief sought.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involves a dispute over insurance coverage for fire damage to property owned by Ivey, where Allstate sought a declaratory judgment in federal court that it owed no coverage. Ivey had filed a state court action including additional claims against non-diverse defendants that could not be joined in federal court due to diversity requirements. The court granted Ivey's motion to dismiss the federal action without prejudice under the Wilton/Brillhart doctrine. It reasoned that the state court provided a more efficient forum to resolve all related claims together, applying the Ameritas guideposts which weighed in favor of dismissal due to considerations of judicial efficiency, the inability to join all parties in federal court, and avoiding procedural fencing by the insurer.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case involved environmental groups challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' decision to issue a permit under the Clean Water Act for the construction of a dam on the Duck River in Alabama, arguing that the Corps failed to adequately assess environmental impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). After a prior remand requiring a harder look at certain issues, the Corps conducted additional analysis and again issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) without preparing a full environmental impact statement. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the Corps' decision was not arbitrary and capricious because it had sufficiently considered the need for the project, alternatives, and other relevant factors in its supplemental environmental assessment.

environmentfederal power

This case is a class action lawsuit brought by Alabama property owners against multiple industrial defendants, including U.S. Pipe, Phelps Dodge, FMC, and others, alleging damage to real property in Calhoun County from the deposit of foundry sand and waste materials at defendants' facilities. The court addressed several motions to dismiss the third amended complaint on grounds including Alabama's statute of repose, statute of limitations, failure to state a claim, and subject-matter jurisdiction issues arising after removal under CAFA. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, holding that claims against MW Custom Papers and Phelps Dodge were barred by the twenty-year rule of repose because their operations ended no later than 1977 and 1983, respectively, more than twenty years before the 2005 filing. The core reasoning applied Alabama precedent establishing that the repose period runs from the last act causing damage, combined with federal pleading standards from Twombly requiring factual allegations sufficient to support the claims, while disregarding extrinsic exhibits at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

environmentpropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved State Farm Insurance Company filing a declaratory judgment action in federal court seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its policyholders in an underlying state court lawsuit alleging sexual assault claims. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the amount in controversy did not exceed the required $75,000. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice, reasoning that because the damages sought in the underlying action were indeterminate, State Farm failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional amount was satisfied, as no unambiguous statement from the underlying plaintiffs established the required amount.

procedure

This case involves the ESOP Committee and trustee of Community Bancshares suing former CEO Kennon Patterson under ERISA for breaching fiduciary duties related to his undisclosed fraud and mismanagement that harmed the company's stock held by the ESOP. Patterson counterclaimed seeking distribution of his ESOP benefits. The court denied Patterson's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' partial motion on claims that he breached his duty to disclose his wrongful conduct to the ESOP Committee. It also granted declaratory relief establishing the ESOP's right of set-off against Patterson's benefits and the propriety of delaying distributions pending that determination, but denied other aspects of the plaintiffs' motion.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Taylor v. XM Satellite Radio, Inc., two Alabama subscribers filed a putative class action lawsuit against XM for breach of contract and unjust enrichment after a satellite outage caused service interruptions lasting about 24 hours on May 21-22, 2007, alleging that XM failed to provide continuous service or refund affected bills. The plaintiffs sought actual damages, restitution, and an injunction on behalf of themselves and other subscribers. XM moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), noting that it had offered all affected subscribers credits exceeding twice the value of their potential losses, which were posted publicly and communicated through various media. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding that XM's offer fully satisfied the plaintiffs' demands, rendering the dispute moot and eliminating any Article III case or controversy required for federal subject matter jurisdiction. The court accepted the plaintiffs' allegations as true but determined it lacked jurisdiction to proceed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a claim by Teresa Scarpulla against the Bayer Corporation Disability Plan and Broadspire Administrator Services under ERISA for the denial of long-term disability benefits after she was unable to work due to her condition. The court, acting as the trier of fact based on the parties' written submissions, determined that the denial of benefits for the initial six-month period was arbitrary and capricious, entitling the plaintiff to those benefits plus interest. However, the evidence did not establish total disability for ongoing benefits, leading the court to remand the case to the plan administrator for further evaluation of that issue. The court also dismissed the claims against Broadspire, finding it was not a proper defendant.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case arose after plaintiffs, who had been part of a prior state-court class action settlement addressing air pollution from the Concord Coal Preparation Plant, filed a federal complaint alleging violations of safety regulations due to accumulations of explosive coal dust and seeking remediation and safety measures. Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, that the claims were barred by the prior settlement, and that most defendants had no ownership or operational role at the plant. The court first determined that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not divest it of jurisdiction and that the prior settlement did not preclude the new claims. It then granted summary judgment to PinnOak Coal Sales, LLC on the ground that plaintiffs presented no evidence linking that defendant to the plant, but denied the motions as to the remaining defendants because factual disputes existed regarding their involvement. The core reasoning centered on the distinction between the federal safety claims and the prior state pollution claims, along with the sufficiency of evidence on corporate relationships.

procedureenvironment

This case involves a challenge by a business alliance and an individual to the Storm Water Management Authority's (SWMA) imposition of increased storm water control fees on its member cities in Alabama. The plaintiffs claimed that SWMA violated state law notice and hearing requirements and exceeded its authority under a state legislative resolution by imposing rules beyond federal requirements under the Clean Water Act and NPDES permits. The federal district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court, denying costs, because the complaint did not present a substantial federal question necessary for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the claims were rooted in state law duties even though they referenced federal standards.

environmentfederal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves Florida seeking a temporary restraining order to require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to maintain water releases of 6,300 cubic feet per second from the Jim Woodruff Dam in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Basin until the Fish and Wildlife Service issues a biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act. The court denied the motion. Florida alleged that the Corps' reservoir operations during low-flow drought conditions were stranding and killing protected mussels downstream, constituting an unlawful "take" under the ESA. The court found that Florida failed to show the Corps' actions caused such a take of the threatened and endangered species.

environmentfederal power

In United States v. Scrushy, the defendant moved to suppress his SEC deposition testimony and exclude certain tape-recorded conversations in a criminal prosecution arising from alleged accounting fraud at HealthSouth. The court granted suppression of the deposition after finding that the U.S. Attorney's office had directed the SEC on the deposition's location, timing, and scope of questions to advance the parallel criminal investigation, without providing Scrushy notice of the criminal inquiry or other protections; this improper coordination rendered the civil testimony inadmissible in the criminal case and required dismissal of the related perjury counts. The court denied the motion to exclude the tape recordings, holding that any ethical violations by government counsel did not warrant evidentiary exclusion under Eleventh Circuit precedent. The ruling rested on due process principles governing the government's use of civil proceedings to obtain evidence for criminal cases.

criminal lawprocedure

Plaintiff Benjamin Tidwell sued his former employer, Coldwater Covers, in Alabama state court for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional misrepresentation, alleging the company failed to invest promised amounts from his wages in company stock as a payroll savings plan. Coldwater Covers removed the case to federal court, asserting both diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction under ERISA. The court granted Tidwell's motion to remand the case to the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, finding that the defendant had not shown the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction and that the claims were not completely preempted by ERISA because they did not seek benefits under an ERISA plan but rather recovery for an alleged unauthorized use of wages. The court denied the request for costs associated with the remand motion.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

Donna J. Beaulieu, an attorney running for judicial office, sued the City of Alabaster and related defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that sections of the city's zoning ordinance limiting political signs to residential districts with dwellings violated her First Amendment right to political expression by preventing her from displaying campaign signs at her commercial office. The court ruled that the ordinance impermissibly burdens political speech in violation of the First Amendment. It found the restrictions to be content-based because they singled out political signs for location limits not applied to other signs, and the city's asserted interests in traffic safety and aesthetics did not justify the burdens under applicable constitutional standards. The court rejected the city's arguments that the ordinance was content-neutral or that Beaulieu lacked standing or had failed to exhaust remedies.

free speechelectionscivil rights

This case involved environmental groups challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' issuance of a Clean Water Act §404 permit for a dam on the Duck River in Alabama, without first preparing an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The plaintiffs sought to vacate the permit and require an EIS, arguing the agency's Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was arbitrary and capricious. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, vacating the permit and remanding the matter to the Corps for further review, while denying other requested relief such as mandating an EIS. The court reasoned that the administrative record showed the Corps failed to take a hard look at cumulative effects of other projects, future water quality in the reservoir, and downstream impacts on the Mulberry Fork, and did not adequately justify the FONSI even if such review had occurred.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Chazen suing Deloitte & Touche LLP for alleged misstatements in financial audits related to a 1997 stock transaction in a corporate acquisition. After his state court action was dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds, with the dismissal affirmed by the Alabama Supreme Court, he filed this federal suit adding a securities claim. The court dismissed the case, finding that collateral estoppel barred relitigation of the forum non conveniens issue, that Ontario was the more appropriate forum on the merits, and that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a product liability lawsuit originally filed in Alabama state court by plaintiff Smith against Ingersoll-Rand and fictitious defendants, alleging negligent design, failure to warn, and liability under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine for workplace injuries. After removal to federal court on diversity grounds, the plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to add William Greene, an Alabama resident and plant safety engineer, asserting claims under Alabama Code § 25-5-11(c) for willful conduct and removal of safety devices. The court initially permitted the amendment but later determined it was improvidently granted because the original complaint did not allege such claims, Greene’s identity was known to the plaintiff, and joinder would destroy complete diversity. Balancing equitable factors, including the diverse defendants’ interest in a federal forum, the court struck the amendment adding Greene, denied the motion to remand, and dismissed Greene as a dispensable party under Rule 21. The case thus remains in federal court against the corporate defendants.

proceduretorts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case involved plaintiff W.R. Huff Asset Management Co. filing state-law claims in Alabama court in 1999 (with an amended complaint in 2000) arising from 1995 securities purchases in connection with a corporate recapitalization that later led to bankruptcy; the claims included fraudulent suppression, misrepresentation, violations of the Alabama Securities Act, and related torts. Defendants removed the action to federal court under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), which mandates removal and dismissal of covered class actions alleging misrepresentations in securities transactions. The court denied Huff's renewed motion to remand, holding that SLUSA preempted the state claims. The core reasoning applied the Landgraf framework for retroactivity, concluding that SLUSA's text, structure, and purpose require its application to suits filed after its November 1998 enactment even when based on earlier conduct, because it governs procedural removal and preemption rather than creating new substantive liabilities.

business & regulatoryprocedure