Kristi DuBose

The case involved BP Products North America Inc. suing Merritt Oil Co., Inc. and R. Fred Walding for breach of various supply and incentive contracts, as well as to enforce personal guaranty agreements, seeking damages for unpaid amounts and unamortized costs. The district court granted BP Products' motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the defendants failed to contest any of BP Products' proposed facts or raise a genuine dispute of material fact, and BP Products met its burden of showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract claims under the applicable standards and local rules.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves the United States' motion to postpone the trial in a criminal matter pending a ruling on the defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The government sought delay because the suppression hearing was scheduled after jury selection, arguing that proceeding with selection could bar its right to appeal an adverse suppression ruling under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 since jeopardy would attach. The court denied the motion, holding that jeopardy attaches only when the jury is empaneled and sworn, not merely selected, and thus the government would retain its appeal rights if the suppression ruling occurred before the jury was sworn.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved AK Steel Corporation suing three former employees of its Rockport Works facility who resigned and joined competitor ThyssenKrupp, alleging breach of employment agreements containing non-disclosure and non-compete provisions, misappropriation of trade secrets under Ohio law, breach of duty of loyalty, and breach of common-law confidentiality duties. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims after the case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds and transferred to the Southern District of Alabama. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the plaintiffs failed to show evidence of economic damages or disclosure of protectable trade secrets in some instances but finding triable issues on certain contractual non-disclosure claims, while ordering further briefing on injunctive relief and jurisdiction.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involves claims by Carlos Johnson, an African American employee at Austal USA, against his employer for hostile work environment and disparate treatment in pay and promotions based on race, in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court addressed the defendant's partial motion for summary judgment on these claims. The court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether racially motivated conduct, including use of the term "boy" and incidents involving nooses, created a hostile work environment, while granting summary judgment on certain untimely promotion claims under Title VII.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves Sylvan Learning Inc. seeking to terminate license agreements with Learning Solutions, Inc. and Baldwin Management after a principal, Richard Blow, was convicted of bank fraud felonies, and to prevent the continued unauthorized use of its trademarks and system. The court considered a motion for preliminary injunction to enforce the terminations and post-termination obligations. The court granted the motion in part, enjoining the defendants from using Sylvan's licensed marks at the Alabama center and requiring compliance with certain contractual obligations under the Alabama agreement, while denying it in part as to other aspects, based on findings of likelihood of success on trademark infringement and breach of contract claims, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a claim by plaintiff Asheley Crawford against her former employer Dolgen Corp. Inc. d/b/a Dollar General for allegedly terminating her employment because of her pregnancy, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to the claim. The court denied the motion, concluding that statements by the store manager Tara Pugh to another employee expressing unwillingness to hire or retain pregnant workers amounted to direct evidence of discrimination because they reflected a discriminatory attitude and were made by a person involved in the termination decision.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this maritime personal injury case, plaintiff Brian Pettis, a diver employed by defendant Bosarge Diving, Inc., sued under the Jones Act and general maritime law alleging negligence and unseaworthiness after experiencing decompression sickness during a dive on August 24, 2006, which he claimed caused ongoing vertigo, memory issues, and inability to work. Following a non-jury trial, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52, determining that Pettis qualified as a Jones Act seaman due to his substantial employment-related connection to a vessel in navigation and that the 20-foot OAL Xpress boat used for dive transport and operations constituted a vessel. The core reasoning applied Supreme Court precedent from Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co. and Chandris v. Latsis, emphasizing that the boat was capable of and actually used for water transportation, was not permanently affixed or out of service, and met the statutory definition under 1 U.S.C. § 3 despite its small size and use during tied-up dives.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Tiffany Cole sued her former employer Mountain View Marketing, Inc., alleging that her termination in April 2008 violated Title VII by discriminating against her on the basis of gender. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court determined that Cole had not filed her EEOC charge within the required 180 days after termination. On the merits, the court found that Mountain View had articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for eliminating Cole's position during a reduction in force, including geography and relative seniority, and that Cole had not produced evidence sufficient to show those reasons were pretextual.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case arose after plaintiffs obtained a $250,000 state-court judgment against insured defendants for negligent swimming-pool construction and then initiated a garnishment proceeding against the defendants' liability insurer, Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company. The insurer removed the garnishment action to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction because the parties were citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the insurer was not a proper defendant entitled to remove, that the proceeding was not separate from the underlying state action, that the one-year removal bar applied, and that the action constituted a direct action imputing the insured's Alabama citizenship to the insurer. The magistrate judge recommended denial of remand, and the district court adopted that recommendation after de novo review, holding that the garnishment was a separate civil action removable by the insurer and that complete diversity existed under federal standards.

procedure

This case was a class action in which plaintiffs alleged that after obtaining mortgage loans from Chase Bank, they were charged 'loan discount' fees that were misrepresented on HUD-1 forms as earned fees for reducing interest rates or providing services, in violation of RESPA Section 8(b), along with related claims for breach of contract and suppression. Chase moved for summary judgment, arguing that the fees were part of its risk-based loan pricing and that plaintiffs could not prove no services were performed in exchange. The court analyzed Eleventh Circuit precedent interpreting RESPA Section 8(b) as prohibiting only fees charged other than for services actually performed, rather than as a cap on fee amounts, and reviewed evidence showing Chase provided consideration through adjusted loan terms. The court granted summary judgment to Chase, concluding that the discount points did not constitute unearned fees under the statute.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves plaintiffs Odessa and Ulysses Mosley suing Wyeth and Schwarz, manufacturers of the brand-name drug Reglan (metoclopramide), after Mrs. Mosley developed tardive dyskinesia from long-term use of generic metoclopramide prescribed for reflux. The plaintiffs asserted claims including negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and fraud against the brand manufacturers even though pharmacy records showed she ingested only generics made by Pliva and Actavis. The court granted summary judgment to Wyeth and Schwarz, holding that Alabama product liability law requires the plaintiff to have used or been injured by the defendant's own product, which was undisputedly not the case here. Warranty claims also failed for lack of privity, and the remaining theories did not create liability without a direct connection to the specific drug ingested.

torts & liability

This case involves claims by Charter Services, Inc. and Mobile Fractional Leasing, LLC against DL Air, LLC for unpaid fees under aircraft lease and management agreements, with plaintiffs seeking to impose liability on non-parties Central Progressive Bank, Blossman Bancshares, Inc., and Richard Blossman via corporate veil piercing and promissory fraud theories. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims. Applying Delaware law to the veil-piercing allegations and Alabama law to the promissory fraud claim, the court determined there was no evidence that DL Air was an alter ego of the defendants or that any representations were made with intent to deceive.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff David Hancock brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Alabama state law against Perry County Sheriff James Hood, Assistant Warden Tommy Buford, and Dr. Brian S. Claytor, alleging assault and battery, unreasonable seizure, conspiracy to deprive civil rights, and violation of the Alabama Medical Liabilities Act arising from events at the Perry County Detention Center. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the defendants' motions to dismiss. All claims against Hood and Buford were dismissed with prejudice on grounds including absolute immunity under Alabama law and failure to state plausible claims. Claims against Dr. Claytor were dismissed with prejudice except for the medical liability claim, which was dismissed without prejudice, and the motion to transfer venue was denied, resulting in dismissal of the entire action.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved six Hispanic contract mechanics who sued their employer, ST Mobile Aerospace Engineering, Inc., under Title VII and Section 1981, alleging disparate treatment based on race and national origin, a hostile work environment from harassment by their crew leader, and retaliation for complaining about the treatment, which they claimed led to the termination of their assignments. The plaintiffs described specific incidents such as being rushed with commands like 'Andale, Andale,' having work cards thrown at them, and being assigned menial tasks not given to non-Hispanic employees, followed by their termination after they called in sick on a day they were not scheduled to work. The court addressed the defendant's motion for summary judgment by examining the company's structure for assigning contract workers, the limited authority of leads, evidence of workload-based releases, and the sequence of events around the complaints and terminations. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding no genuine issues of material fact on the claims because the evidence did not establish that the actions were motivated by discriminatory animus or retaliation rather than legitimate business reasons like lack of work.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The Mitchell Company sued its former executive Campus, along with Young and others, alleging they conspired to fraudulently acquire and flip real estate properties at a profit by selling them to the company at inflated prices in violation of fiduciary duties and through misrepresentations. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment on claims including intentional and negligent fraud, suppression, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, wantonness, civil conspiracy, officer liability, and unjust enrichment under Alabama and Florida law. The court held that Florida's economic loss rule does not bar the breach of fiduciary duty claim despite an underlying contract, found genuine issues of material fact on several counts precluding summary judgment, dismissed or limited certain other claims such as conversion and unjust enrichment, and rejected estoppel and other defenses.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Alabama property owners suing a natural gas pipeline company for negligence, trespass, nuisance, and inverse condemnation, alleging that pipeline construction activities northwest of their land caused flooding, siltation of a pond, and septic system failure on their property. The U.S. District Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The core reasoning was that a release agreement the plaintiffs had signed in exchange for payment barred their claims, and doctrines such as unclean hands did not apply to a defendant not seeking affirmative equitable relief.

propertytorts & liability

This case involved a seaman, Phillip Crow, who sued his employer, Cooper Marine & Timberlands Corp., after injuring his left knee while stepping onto a vessel, asserting claims under the Jones Act for negligence as well as maritime claims for unseaworthiness, maintenance, cure, and lost wages. The court conducted a non-jury trial and evaluated the evidence to determine liability and damages. It granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness claims, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove those elements by a preponderance of the evidence, but awarded the plaintiff $2,420 in maintenance payments while denying claims for additional lost wages, attorney's fees, and punitive damages. The decision rested on the legal standards requiring proof that the employer's negligence or an unseaworthy condition caused the injury, alongside the shipowner's separate obligation to provide maintenance for injuries occurring in service of the vessel absent willful misconduct by the seaman.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involves Temploy, Inc. and Hard Hitters, Inc. suing NCCI, the administrator of Alabama's assigned-risk workers' compensation insurance plan, for negligence, wantonness, and defamation arising from NCCI's role in overseeing a servicing carrier's handling of Temploy's 2002 policy and subsequent reporting of noncompliance information. The claims followed a prior resolved lawsuit against the servicing carrier itself. The court granted NCCI's motion for summary judgment, rendering the supplemental motion moot, and denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add claims on behalf of Hard Hitters. The decision rested on the untimeliness of the amendment after discovery and summary judgment motions, its futility due to lack of duty owed to Hard Hitters, and the absence of genuine issues of material fact supporting liability against NCCI under the plan rules.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act by Joe A. Beard, Jr., a tree topper working for Charles Langham Logging, seeking overtime compensation for himself and similarly situated employees, along with a separate state-law claim for unpaid work time. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the FLSA overtime claims. It found that the logging operation had no more than eight employees in any workweek during the relevant three-year period because contract haulers were independent contractors, not employees, based on evidence that the haulers owned their own trucks, paid their own expenses, worked for multiple companies, and operated with minimal control from the defendant. This employee count placed the employer within the FLSA's small-business exemption from overtime requirements.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a trademark infringement and unfair competition suit brought by an Alabama-based music business against an Illinois-based company with a similar name and website. The court considered the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, based on the complaint's allegations regarding the defendant's online presence. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims without prejudice, holding that the defendant's website and any post-filing notice did not establish the minimum contacts required under due process. Core reasoning relied on precedents like Licciardello v. Lovelady and Calder v. Jones, finding that the claims did not involve an intentional tort and that jurisdiction could not be created by the plaintiff's own actions or a passive website.

business & regulatoryprocedure