In Powell v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, plaintiff Kyra Powell, an Alabama resident, filed a proposed nationwide class action against AT&T alleging state-law claims of conversion, trespass, and unjust enrichment after her iPhone was stolen and AT&T refused to track the device or waive replacement costs. AT&T moved to compel arbitration under the binding arbitration clause in its Terms of Service, which Powell had electronically accepted when purchasing the phone and which included features such as cost-free arbitration for small claims, a class-action waiver, and various consumer-friendly procedural options. The court, applying Alabama law under the Federal Arbitration Act, examined whether the clause was unconscionable by assessing factors including unequal bargaining power, absence of meaningful choice, and one-sided terms, but concluded that Powell did not meet her burden of proving unconscionability with substantial evidence. The court therefore granted AT&T's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the lawsuit.
The case involved Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. (MBUSI) seeking a preliminary injunction to compel Cobasys, LLC to perform under an alleged production supply contract for nickel metal hydride battery packs to be used in hybrid vehicles manufactured at MBUSI's Alabama plant. MBUSI claimed that negotiations through its agent Daimler, including various quotations and a purchase contract issued on April 17, 2007, formed a binding agreement incorporating MBUSI's Master Terms. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction, holding that MBUSI failed to meet its burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits, as the evidence did not establish that the parties had reached a final agreement on all essential terms. The court also denied Cobasys's motion to transfer venue based on a forum selection clause in the Master Terms.
In Haney v. Eaton Electrical, Inc., plaintiff Dwayne Haney sued the manufacturers of electrical relays used in an industrial winder machine after suffering injuries at a 3M facility when the machine's emergency stop buttons failed to deactivate it due to relay malfunction. The claims were brought under Alabama's Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine for alleged design defects and failure to warn, along with breach of express or implied warranties. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and to exclude the plaintiff's expert testimony. The court reasoned that the expert was not qualified and lacked reliable methodology, and that the plaintiff failed to present evidence showing a defect, causation, or the existence and breach of any warranty. As a result, the case was dismissed.
This case involved seven store managers at Dollar General stores who sued their employer, Dolgencorp, Inc., seeking unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging they were improperly classified as exempt from overtime requirements. The court granted the defendant's motions for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiffs qualified for the executive exemption under the FLSA. The decision was based on evidence that the store managers supervised two or more employees, performed managerial duties such as hiring, training, and directing work, received a salary plus potential bonuses, and had significant authority over store operations, even though much of their time was spent on non-exempt tasks. The court applied the relevant Department of Labor regulations to determine the exemption applied.
In this case, plaintiff Charles Earnest sued his insurer State Farm for a declaratory judgment regarding coverage obligations under a homeowner's policy and for bad faith, after State Farm declined to defend or indemnify him in an underlying tort action arising from an auto accident allegedly caused by obstructed views on his property; he also named several non-diverse individual defendants as parties in interest. State Farm removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds, arguing the non-diverse defendants were fraudulently joined or should be realigned as plaintiffs. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, dismissing two defendants as fraudulently joined because the complaint alleged no claims against them, realigning the third defendant as a plaintiff due to aligned interests on the coverage issue, and concluding that complete diversity then existed to support federal jurisdiction.
The case involved Alesia Cork suing Marriott International and its subsidiary ExecuStay for various state law claims, primarily alleging that she was fraudulently induced to leave her job at State Farm by misrepresentations about a new National Catastrophe Manager position at ExecuStay. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. The reasoning centered on the lack of evidence showing an intent to deceive by the hiring manager, the at-will nature of the employment with no guarantees of success or duration, and the plaintiff's failure to meet the elements required for fraud claims under Alabama law.
.jpg?width=900)