Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Mitzi Lawson appealed a judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Harris Culinary Enterprises, LLC (HCE), John C. Harris III (Clinton), and John C. Harris, Jr. (John), (collectively "the Harrises"), on their fraud claims related to their purchase of a restaurant franchise. Mitzi was married to codefendant, Sims Lawson. Following his marriage to Mitzi, Sims formed SYM, Inc. for the purpose of operating a "Fox's Pizza Den" restaurant franchise in Killen. Sims purchased a building in which to operate the franchise; that building was titled solely in Mitzi's name. At some time before the events giving rise to their claims on appeal, John and Clinton formed HCE for the purpose of operating pizza-restaurant franchises. In March 2007, the Harrises entered into negotiations with Sims to purchase the Killen franchise. According to the Harrises, in an apparent attempt to secure a higher purchase price, Sims purportedly generated false financial reports evidencing higher gross sales and profits for the Killen franchise than were actually realized. The Harrises ultimately purchased the Killen franchise. As a condition of the sales agreement, the Harrises entered into a one-year lease agreement to continue operation of the Killen franchise in its then current location. The Harrisses initiated the underlying lawsuit alleging that as a result of the allegedly falsified financial reports, they were induced to purchase both the franchise and enter into the lease agreement. Mitzi moved to dismiss the claims against her, arguing that she made no actual representation to the Harrises. Plaintiffs won at trial, and Mitzi appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that there was no evidence presented at trial from which the court could have reasonably determined that Mitzi made any misrepresentation to the Harrises. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court's judgment against her. View "Lawson v. Harris Culinary Enterprises, LLC" on Justia Law

Aurora Healthcare, Inc., Aurora Cares, LLC, (d/b/a Tara Cares) and Birmingham Nursing and Rehabilitation Center East, LLC appealed a circuit court order that denied their motion to compel arbitration. Mary Pettway, then 75 years old, was discharged from the hospital at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and admitted to a nursing home in Birmingham owned and operated by the defendants. She was returned to the hospital and then readmitted to the nursing home twice in the weeks following her initial discharge. Upon Pettway's first readmission, an arbitration agreement was executed, along with the other admission documents, on her behalf. Pettway was finally returned to the hospital, where she died on December 10, 2003. Sharon Ramsey, in her capacity as administratrix of Pettway's estate, filed a complaint against the defendants. The complaint asserted a variety of statutory and common-law claims allegedly arising from Pettway's death, including a wrongful-death claim. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss or for a change of venue. The parties litigated the issue of venue vigorously until the Wilcox Circuit Court entered an order transferring the case to the Jefferson Circuit Court. The "Aurora" defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that they did not own the nursing home at which Pettway resided during the relevant period. Because the Supreme Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support a determination that Ramsey was substantially prejudiced by defendants' belated assertion of their right to arbitration, "the order of the circuit court denying the defendants' motion to compel arbitration must be reversed. We are unable to determine, however, whether this case is due to be arbitrated." Accordingly, the Court reversed the circuit court's order denying the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The Court remanded the case for that court to consider the motion to compel arbitration in light of the issues associated with the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement proffered by the defendants. View "Aurora Healthcare, Inc. v. Ramsey" on Justia Law

In May 2008, seven-year-old Jordan Alexander Robertson was placed in foster care at the home of Verlin Spurgeon and Carol Spurgeon. In June 2008, Jordan drowned in the Spurgeons' swimming pool. James Brakefield, as administrator of Jordan's estate, sued the Spurgeons, among others, in circuit court alleging that they had negligently and/or wantonly caused Jordan's death. The Spurgeons moved the circuit court for a summary judgment, alleging, among other things, that the claims were barred by the doctrines of parental, State, and State-agent immunity. The circuit court denied the motion. The Spurgeons petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to dismiss the claims against them. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted their petition in part and issued the writ to direct the circuit court to dismiss the negligence claims against the Spurgeons. In all other respects, the Court denied the petition. View "Brakefield v. Alabama Dept. of Human Resources" on Justia Law

The Boaz City Board of Education ("the Board") and its members Alan Perry, Fran Milwee, Roger Adams, Alan Davis, and Tony G. King (collectively "the Board members") petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacate its order that denied their motion to dismiss claims filed against them by Lisa and Donnie Tarvin and to enter an order dismissing the claims with prejudice. According to the complaint, Leland Dishman, the superintendent for the Board, struck kindergarden teacher Lisa Tarvin with a paddle. Dishman read a statement at a press conference, denying that the incident occurred. The Tarvins sued the Board, the Board members in their official capacities, and Dishman in his individual capacity, alleging claims of assault and/or battery, defamation, libel, and slander and sought monetary damages. The Board and the Board members moved to dismiss the claims against them, arguing that they were immune from suit under the State immunity doctrine. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Board and its members demonstrated that under the Alabama Constitution, they had immunity from the claims asserted against them, and "a clear legal right to have the claims… dismissed with prejudice." The Court granted the petition and issued the writ. View "Tarvin v. Dishman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kenneth Jakeman appealed a trial court's dismissal of his claims against Defendants Alderwoods, Inc., Lawrence Group Management Company, LLC, Montgomery Memorial Cemetery, Inc. and Judy Jones. Plaintiff's father purchased a "family plot" in the cemetery in 1967 containing ten burial spaces. Pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement for the family plot, burial was limited to members of the Jakeman family. The cemetery mistakenly conveyed two spaces in the Jakeman family plot to James Jones and his wife, Defendant Judy Jones. Mr. Jones died and was buried in one of the Jakeman spaces. Plaintiff learned of the mistake in 2006, and notified the the cemetery and Mrs. Jones. Mr. Jones was reinterred in another space, however, still within the Jakeman spaces. When Plaintiff's father died in 2008, Mr. Jones was still interred in one of the Jakeman spaces. Despite an offer to exchange burial spaces, and based on a purported refusal to again exhume Mr. Jones, Plaintiff filed suit alleging breach of contract, trespass, negligence, willfulness and/or wantonness, outrage and conversion. Mrs. Jones cross-claimed against Alderwoods, Lawrence and the cemetery based on their alleged error in conveying to her spaces already owned by the Jakemans. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case: "Despite representations in [Plaintiff's] notice of appeal that the underlying matter has been disposed of in its entirety, we hold that, because Judy's cross-claim remains pending below, this appeal is from a nonfinal judgment, and we do not have subject-matter jurisdiction." Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jakeman v. Lawrence Group Management Company, LLC" on Justia Law

Coosa Cable Company, Inc. (Coosa Cable), sued Sycamore Management Group, LLC (Sycamore), and DirecPath, LLC (DirecPath). Coosa Cable sought and obtained both a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction barring DirecPath from providing video-programming services to the tenants of an apartment building owned by Sycamore. As a condition of the TRO, Coosa Cable provided a security bond of $250. As a condition of the preliminary injunction, the trial court required Coosa Cable to provide a security bond of $100,000. After a hearing, the trial court entered a permanent injunction against Sycamore and DirecPath and discharged Coosa Cable's security bond. Sycamore and DirecPath appealed; the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order granting permanent injunctive relief to Coosa Cable. Sycamore and DirecPath then sought to recover costs, damages, and attorney fees caused by the wrongful injunction, but the trial court denied their motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the trial court's decision: "[the Court held] that after this Court held in [the first Sycamore case] that Sycamore and DirecPath had been wrongfully enjoined, they were entitled to seek an award from Coosa Cable of the damages caused by the wrongful injunction. Because the trial court erred in denying Sycamore and DirecPath damages for the wrongful injunction, we reverse the trial court's order denying their motion seeking those damages." View "Sycamore Management Group, LLC v. Coosa Cable Company, Inc. " on Justia Law

Defendant Jo Ann Hood appealed a trial court's order that granted a motion for a new trial filed by Plaintiff Elizabeth McElroy as personal representative of the estate of Austin Taylor Terry (the estate). The mother of Austin Taylor Terry, who was then 12 months old, admitted him to the Children's Hospital of Alabama. A social worker at the hospital notified the county Department of Human Resources (DHR) that Terry had suffered "suspicious non-accidental injuries." Terry's father, who was divorced from Terry's mother, also contacted DHR after he learned of his son's hospitalization. He spoke with an after-hours on-call DHR service worker learned that Chris Wesson, the mother's boyfriend, had been in the house with Terry. The service worker recommended that Terry not be allowed to return home when he was discharged. A DHR supervisor who had not seen the report, assigned Defendant to investigate Terry's suspected abuse and informed the Hospital that Terry could go home with his mother when he was discharged. Based on her investigation, Defendant determined that it was safe to leave Terry in his mother's care. Subsequently, Terry died from brain injuries caused by Wesson. Terry's parents filed separate wrongful-death actions naming Wesson, Children's Hospital, Hood, and other DHR social workers as defendants. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the estate and awarded $25,000 in damages against Wesson and Hood. The estate filed a motion for a new trial, arguing among other things, that a juror's failure to respond to a voir dire question prevented the estate from using its jury strikes effectively because it would have used one to remove the juror had the juror answered the question. After Hood filed her opposition to the estate's postjudgment motion, the court granted the motion on the ground that the estate was probably prejudiced in its right to a fair and impartial trial as a result of the juror's failure to respond to the voir dire question. Upon review, the Supreme Court could not conclude that "[the juror's] failure to reveal, in response to the particular questions asked, [provided] adequate support for a finding ... so as to warrant retrying this case." The Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hood v. McElroy" on Justia Law

Tate & Lyle Sucralose, Inc. (TLS) petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Washington Circuit Court to vacate its December 1, 2010 order denying its motion to dismiss, and to enter an order dismissing as time-barred the negligence and wantonness claims asserted by William C.Anderson, Jr. against it. Upon review of the circuit court's record, the Supreme Court concluded that Anderson failed to exercise due diligence in ascertaining TLS's identity, and that failure barred his attempt to amend his complaint to substitute TLS for a fictitiously named defendant so as to avoid the application of the statute of limitations barring his negligence claims. The Court also concluded that as to Anderson's wantonness claims, the limitations period had not yet expired. Therefore, the Court granted the petition in part and denied it in part and issued the writ. View "Anderson v. Tate & Lyle PLC" on Justia Law

Defendants Lafarge North America, Inc. and Wayne Looney appealed a jury verdict in favor of Plaintinff Lawrence Nord. Plaintiff's claims arose from a personal injury he sustained at Lafarge's cement packhouse. Various forms of bagged cement are loaded onto flatbed trucks owned and operated by companies other than Lafarge, by Lafarge employees using forklifts. The drivers of the flatbed trucks drive their trucks into the loading zone of the packhouse. Plaintiff, a driver for Southern Tank, was injured in the loading zone of the packhouse when Lafarge employee Looney ran over Plaintiff's foot with a forklift, breaking several bones. In their postjudgment motion, Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on his wantonness claim; that Plaintiff's negligence claim was barred because he had been contributorily negligent; that if the jury verdict stood, Defendants were "entitled to a setoff in the amount of the damages claimed by [Nord] which [had] already been recovered by ... Nord ..."; that the trial court had erred by instructing the jury on wantonness, punitive damages, and premises liability; and that the verdict form submitted to the jury was improper. Upon review of the trial record, the Supreme Court found that the record was insufficient to support the jury's verdict in favor of Plaintiff. The Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for judgment in favor of Defendants. View "Lafarge North America, Inc. v. Nord " on Justia Law

Getloaded Corporation, TransCore, and Roper Industries, Inc. (collectively, Getloaded), and American Timber & Steel Company, Inc. (ATSC), petitioned the Supreme Court for writs of mandamus to direct the Montgomery Circuit Court to dismiss them as defendants based on a lack of personal jurisdiction in actions filed by Plaintiffs Bishop Ivey, Carolyn Kelley, Joan Foye Wynn, Sonie Taylor, Annette Fenn, Kendra Bouier, and Jenny Simmons. The plaintiffs were representatives of the estates of passengers riding in an Alabama Department of Corrections van who died as a result of an October 2008 accident. A truck carrying lumber purchased by ATSC from Getloaded tried to pass another vehicle on the highway. The van hit the passing truck and caught fire, engulfing the van in flames killing all inside. The plaintiffs' respective complaints asserted claims against the purchasers of the lumber, the truck drivers and their trucking companies, and others who were otherwise involved in the loading and delivery of the lumber. ATSC filed an answer to the complaints in which, among other things, it pleaded lack of personal jurisdiction. In April 2009, the claims against ATSC were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs then reached a settlement with one of the trucking companies and its driver. The circuit court found that the remaining Defendants had the sufficient "minimum contacts" with the state to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court found Defendants did not have sufficient contact with the state in order for the circuit court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them. The Supreme Court reversed the court's decision and remanded the case to dismiss Defendants from this action. View "In re: Ivey v. Lewis Trucking Co. " on Justia Law