Inge Prytz Johnson

This case involves a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant credit management company willfully failed to reasonably investigate his complaints about inaccurate credit information. After a jury trial, the plaintiff prevailed and was awarded damages, including punitive damages. The defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and remittitur of the punitive damages, arguing insufficient evidence of willfulness, causation of injury, and reasonableness of procedures. The court denied all motions, holding that the Seventh Amendment bars reexamination of the jury's factual findings and that the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence, as credibility determinations and inferences were properly within the jury's province.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying disability insurance benefits for conditions including diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, depression, back pain, and arthritis. The court reversed the ALJ's determination that the plaintiff was not disabled and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The core reasoning was that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, as it improperly discounted opinions from treating physicians while relying on assessments from non-medical disability examiners and included unfounded speculation about physicians' motives.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

This case involved a civil forfeiture action by the United States against real property and bank accounts owned or leased by Alex Latifi and Axion Corporation, based on allegations that Axion violated federal statutes including the Arms Export Control Act and laws against fraud involving aircraft parts in fulfilling a defense contract. After the claimants prevailed, the court had previously awarded attorneys' fees under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, and the present order determines the specific amount recoverable. The court decided that the claimants are entitled to $363,259.92 plus interest, which covers reasonable fees incurred in both the civil forfeiture proceeding and the related criminal case after adjusting for excessive, duplicative, or insufficiently documented hours and rates. The reasoning focused on applying lodestar calculations, excluding certain overhead or unverified expenses, and recognizing that CAFRA permits recovery of fees from the parallel criminal matter when they were intertwined with defending the forfeiture.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

The case concerns a citizen suit brought by Black Warrior Riverkeeper under the Clean Water Act against the Birmingham Airport Authority and Dunn Construction Company, alleging ongoing permit violations and pollutant discharges into Village Creek from an airport runway extension project. After the Alabama Department of Environmental Management entered consent orders with the defendants following administrative proceedings in which the plaintiff had participated, the defendants moved to dismiss, contending the suit was barred by the state's enforcement actions and doctrines such as primary jurisdiction. The court converted the motions to summary judgment and denied them, finding that the action falls within the statutory exception of 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g)(6)(B)(ii) because the plaintiff's 60-day notice preceded the state proceedings and the suit was timely filed, and that allegations of continuing violations not resolved by the consent orders present genuine issues of material fact precluding dismissal.

environment

This case was a civil forfeiture proceeding brought by the government against certain real property owned by Axion Corporation and the Latifis after their acquittal in a related criminal prosecution. The government moved to dismiss the action without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), while the claimants sought dismissal with prejudice to qualify for attorneys' fees and costs under CAFRA. The court granted dismissal with prejudice, finding that the government had no intention of pursuing the matter further and that the acquittal plus the dismissal order created a judicially sanctioned change in the parties' legal relationship. It further held that this outcome made the claimants substantially prevailing parties under CAFRA, entitling them to recover reasonable fees, costs, and interest, consistent with the statute's purpose of allowing innocent owners to recover after wrongful seizures.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

The case concerned a breach of contract dispute in which Barber Auto Sales alleged that UPS manipulated its audit procedures under their shipping agreements to improperly increase charges based on false package dimensions. UPS moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Barber's claims for equitable relief were preempted by the FAAAA and that many of its contract claims were barred by the contractual 180-day notice requirement and other time limits. The court granted the motion in relevant part, dismissing the equitable claims due to federal preemption of state-law provisions related to carrier prices and services, dismissing untimely claims that failed to satisfy the notice and filing deadlines in the UPS Customer Agreement, and allowing only timely breach claims to proceed. The core reasoning relied on the broad preemptive scope of the FAAAA as interpreted by Supreme Court precedent and the plain terms of the parties' contracts enforcing notice as a condition precedent.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

In this case, pretrial detainee Kevin Danley sued five jail personnel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they subjected him to excessive force by pepper-spraying him without justification and then denied him medical treatment while he was held at the Lauderdale County Detention Center. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting qualified immunity. After the Eleventh Circuit reversed an initial denial and remanded for a detailed analysis of the complaint's allegations, the district court again denied the motions. The court reasoned that the facts alleged, taken as true, described conduct violating clearly established constitutional rights against excessive force, with the complaint also sufficiently pleading supervisory liability based on a custom or practice of such force.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Oliver v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that moving companies provided misleading low estimates for an interstate household move from Georgia to Alabama, then demanded additional payment after the shipment and caused damage or loss to some goods; she brought state-law claims for fraud, negligence, conversion, breach of contract, and related theories plus a Carmack Amendment claim. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the state-law counts and removing White's Moving Service as a defendant. It reasoned that the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act preempts state claims arising from the transportation contract or carrier conduct in interstate shipments, citing Eleventh Circuit precedent that such claims must relate directly to the bill of lading and actual loss or injury; the court also held that the statute makes the disclosed principal carrier liable for its agent's acts, precluding separate liability for the agent.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan in the joint filing by George and Danielle Sanders. The Alabama Department of Human Resources (DHR) filed claims for domestic support obligation arrears totaling over $2,600 and objected to the plan, arguing that under the 2005 BAPCPA amendments to 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1), such claims must be paid in full through the plan before any distributions on other priority claims, including the debtors' attorney fees, and that payroll deductions should cease. The bankruptcy court overruled the objection on priorities and allowed the plan to proceed with concurrent payments. On de novo review, the district court affirmed, holding that the plain language of §§ 1322(a)(2) and 1326(b)(1) permits concurrent rather than sequential payment of § 507 claims in Chapter 13 and does not require domestic support obligations to be satisfied ahead of other listed priorities.

family lawprocedure

This case involves owners of video gaming establishments who filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking a declaratory judgment that Alabama officials' seizures of their machines were unlawful, that Alabama Code provisions on gambling devices and lotteries (§§ 13A-12-20 et seq. and § 13A-12-76) are unconstitutionally vague, and that the machines should be returned as takings without just compensation, in alleged violation of their Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court heard arguments on the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, along with the defendants' motions to dismiss, while noting multiple pending state-court cases addressing the same machines' legality under Alabama law and the state constitution's ban on lotteries. The court declined to resolve the federal claims at this stage, observing that the underlying questions of state law (including whether the machines qualify as illegal slot machines or fall within the bona fide amusement exception) are already being litigated in Alabama courts and are better addressed there before any federal constitutional adjudication.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involves the Estate of Elizabeth P. O’Neal seeking an estate tax deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 2053(a)(3) for claims arising from transferee gift tax and generation-skipping transfer tax liabilities asserted by the IRS against her children and grandchildren as donees of undervalued 1987 stock gifts. On remand from the Eleventh Circuit, the district court was directed to value those claims as of the date of Mrs. O’Neal’s death without considering post-death events. After an evidentiary hearing, the court determined the deduction amount based on pre-death facts, including the reported gift values, the expiration of statutes of limitations, the IRS’s valuation report, pending Tax Court litigation, and the probability of the donees’ success in contesting transferee liability. The core reasoning centered on expert assessments of the uncertainty and potential outcomes of the IRS claims as they existed at the time of death.

taxes

This case involves a minor student who enrolled at the University of Alabama at Birmingham at age 15 on scholarship and alleges she was sexually exploited by athletes, supplied with alcohol and drugs, and neglected by the university despite prior assurances of special oversight from housing officials. The plaintiff brought claims including negligence, breach of contract or duty, and Title IX violations, seeking damages after her academic performance declined and her parents learned of the situation. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding no special duty owed to minor students on campus, no mandatory reporting obligation triggered under state law given the plaintiff's denials, and insufficient allegations of actual notice or deliberate indifference for a Title IX claim since the university investigated rumors but received assurances of no misconduct. The reasoning emphasized that general university policies do not create heightened obligations based on age alone and that voluntary student conduct, without university facilitation, does not support liability.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Beck's claims that the City of Haleyville and its police department discriminated against her on the basis of sex and age by paying her less than male officers performing similar duties and by not selecting her for a permanent position after her grant-funded community police officer role ended in 1998. She alleged violations of the ADEA, Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment after reviewing the pleadings, memoranda, and evidence. The decision rested on the plaintiff's failure to meet her evidentiary burden to show that the pay differences, which stemmed from grant funding constraints and later raises to non-grant officers, or the non-rehire decision, which followed the police chief's lack of recommendation amid performance concerns, were motivated by discriminatory animus.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved plaintiff Bill Gilbert, sole shareholder of a company, suing his health insurer for breach of contract and bad faith refusal to pay after the denial of claims for his hospitalization under a group policy obtained through the company. The defendants removed the state court action to federal court and moved to dismiss the state law claims on grounds of ERISA preemption. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the breach of contract claim as preempted by ERISA, but denied dismissal of the bad faith claim, reasoning that it fell within ERISA's savings clause preserving state laws regulating insurance. The court retained jurisdiction under diversity and federal question and permitted amendment to add ERISA claims.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns liability for cleanup costs of hazardous substance contamination at a waste recycling facility in Alabama, arising from the 1995 sale of Allworth (the facility operator) by the Southdown plaintiffs to Nortru under a stock purchase agreement and accompanying remediation agreement. The Southdown plaintiffs sought reimbursement from Nortru, Allworth, and customer defendants under CERCLA for remediation expenses, while Nortru and related parties moved for partial summary judgment arguing the claims were barred or limited. The court granted Nortru's motion and denied the cross-motion, holding that Southdown was not an innocent purchaser because it failed to conduct an appropriate environmental inquiry before acquiring Allworth in 1990 and that the action was properly characterized as a contribution claim among potentially responsible parties under Section 113(f) rather than a cost-recovery action under Section 107(a). The reasoning emphasized undisputed facts about known contamination at the time of sale, the parties' prior operations at the site, and Eleventh Circuit precedent requiring innocence for Section 107(a) claims.

environmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is an appeal by the United States from a bankruptcy court ruling in a Chapter 7 proceeding filed by the debtor in 1997. The bankruptcy court held that the debtor's unpaid federal income taxes for 1982 through 1992 were dischargeable and not excepted under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C), finding no willful attempt to evade or defeat the taxes. The district court affirmed, reasoning that the debtor's credible testimony established his alcoholism as the cause of nonpayment and nonfiling rather than any intent to evade, that he accumulated no hidden wealth or assets, and that the facts were distinguishable from cases involving bad faith conduct such as asset concealment or false affidavits. The court emphasized that each case is fact-specific and that the bankruptcy court's findings were not clearly erroneous.

taxes

The case concerned claims by EBSCO Industries, Inc., owner of fishing lure brands including Rebel and Heddon, against LMN Enterprises, Inc. and its principals for trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, dilution, and false advertising under the Lanham Act and Alabama law. EBSCO alleged that LMN's production and sale of lower-cost "look-alike" lures copied the protected shapes and names of EBSCO products such as the Jitterbug, Hula Popper, and Zara Spook configurations. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court found no admissible evidence of actual consumer confusion and insufficient support for EBSCO's claims of likelihood of confusion or dilution, while also noting common industry practices of lure copying and the generic nature of certain shapes.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The Estate of Elizabeth P. O'Neal sued the United States for a refund of over $1.8 million in federal estate taxes and interest, asserting deductions for claims by donees of 1987 stock gifts seeking reimbursement of their transferee gift and generation-skipping transfer tax liabilities, plus certain administrative expenses like attorney fees and interest. The government filed counterclaims seeking additional taxes based on revalued gifts, unauthorized fund transfers by an attorney-in-fact, and nondeductible expenses. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted each motion in part and denied it in part, holding that some but not all claimed deductions were allowable, that certain fees lacked supporting evidence of reasonableness or benefit to the estate, and that 26 U.S.C. § 2504(c) did not bar revaluation of the prior gifts for estate tax purposes.

taxesprocedure

This case involved a plaintiff participating in the Jefferson County Food Stamp Program who alleged that county and state human resources defendants improperly denied him certain deductions for homeless shelter expenses and income averaging during his 1998 benefit renewal application, leading to reduced benefits. The plaintiff brought seven counts claiming violations of Food Stamp Act regulations, due process and equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, racial and religious discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1985, and 1988, conspiracy, and the tort of outrage. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. It reasoned that food stamps do not involve contractual rights under § 1981, the complaint lacked specific factual allegations of intentional discrimination or conspiracy, Eleventh Amendment immunity applied, and the alleged conduct did not meet the standard for outrage under Alabama law.

civil rightsfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned coal mining companies that sought refunds or credits for roughly $35 million in overpaid health benefit premiums to the UMWA Combined Benefit Fund under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992, stemming from the Commissioner of Social Security's use of an improper formula to calculate those premiums in 1993. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss and for summary judgment filed by the Fund trustees and federal defendants. It concluded that the operators could pursue equitable restitution under federal common law for the mistaken overpayments to the multi-employer plan, notwithstanding ERISA provisions that permit but do not compel return of contributions, because trustees lack incentive to refund excess amounts without such a cause of action.

business & regulatorylabor & employment