Myron Herbert Thompson

Joseph D. Brown, Jr. and Nadine Brown sued Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC in Alabama state court for negligence and wantonness, alleging that Ocwen sent incorrect past-due notices and charged improper late fees on their mortgage under a foreclosure prevention agreement. Ocwen removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, arguing that the amount in controversy was satisfied by the value of the home because the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief against foreclosure. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that Ocwen failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold was met. The plaintiffs stipulated that they were not seeking injunctive relief and that their damages were below the threshold, and the court noted that any potential injunctive relief would be limited to the value of delaying foreclosure rather than the full property value. Removal statutes are to be construed narrowly, with uncertainties resolved in favor of remand.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved defendant Monty Ervin, who faced charges of tax evasion, conspiracy to defraud the federal government, and structuring financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements. The district court conducted a de novo review of a magistrate judge's order detaining Ervin pending trial on the basis of flight risk under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(A). The court affirmed the detention, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Ervin posed a serious risk of flight due to his near-attempt to leave the country, history of concealing substantial assets, and statements rejecting federal authority, and that no combination of release conditions could reasonably assure his appearance at trial.

criminal lawtaxesprocedure

In United States v. McGregor, defendants facing bribery charges objected to a magistrate judge's order denying their request to strike government agents' testimony from suppression hearings, arguing the government violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2 by producing related witness statements after the hearings. The district court overruled the objections and affirmed the magistrate judge's order. The court found no prejudice to the defendants because the magistrate had reopened the hearing for additional questioning of the agents, determined the government's delays stemmed from ignorance rather than willful noncompliance, and already ordered the government to search for and certify discoverable materials.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Gilley, defendant Ronald E. Gilley, charged in a multi-count federal indictment with conspiracy, federal-programs bribery, honest-services fraud, and money laundering arising from alleged efforts to influence legislation on electronic bingo in Alabama, appealed a magistrate judge's order revoking his pretrial release. The government had alleged violations of release conditions prohibiting additional criminal conduct and contact with potential witnesses, based on evidence that Gilley offered financial incentives to a cooperating witness to maintain a false story regarding a prior bribe attempt and made other post-indictment contacts. The district court held there was probable cause to believe Gilley violated the no-additional-criminal-conduct condition by attempting to obstruct justice but found insufficient grounds to conclude he violated the no-contact condition. Accordingly, the court upheld the revocation of pretrial release pending trial on the obstruction-related grounds, while granting leave to seek reconsideration if the new charge did not proceed toward timely resolution.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a breach of contract and related claims under Alabama law brought by Universal Safety Response, Inc. against Government Technical Services, LLC and others in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, seeking recovery of payments from an escrow account holding federal contract funds. The plaintiff moved for a pre-hearing writ of seizure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 and Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 64 to immediately seize the funds. The court granted the motion and issued the writ against the escrow account held by ServisFirst Bank, finding that the specific, identifiable escrow funds qualified as seizable property rather than requiring attachment procedures, that the plaintiff met the affidavit requirements including showing a risk of transfer, and that Alabama precedent supported treating such funds as property subject to seizure.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

In Turner v. Regions Bank, plaintiffs Michael and Joanna Turner sued Madison County Community Bank (MCCB) and others, alleging violations of a bankruptcy discharge injunction and the Fair Credit Reporting Act after MCCB attempted to collect on a discharged auto loan and reported the debt to credit agencies. The court addressed MCCB's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and a related motion to stay discovery. The court denied both motions, finding that MCCB had sufficient minimum contacts with Alabama to support specific personal jurisdiction because it had purposefully sent debt-collection notices to the plaintiffs in Alabama, where the claims arose. The analysis focused on due process requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment, concluding that jurisdiction was reasonable and did not offend traditional notions of fair play.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiffs Patrick and Daniel Grider and their company sued the City of Auburn and officials, alleging improper enforcement of laws through federal § 1983 claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as various state tort claims. After summary judgment was granted on most claims—including treating state civil conspiracy, negligence, and wantonness claims as waived—the plaintiffs moved under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) to alter or amend the judgment post-appeal, arguing the waiver finding was incorrect. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the plaintiffs had not timely objected to the waiver determination during prior proceedings, such as their response to the stay motion or the appeal process, and that the motion did not satisfy the standards for relief under the federal rules even assuming timeliness. The decision focused on procedural requirements for post-judgment relief rather than reexamining the underlying claims on the merits.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Judith Heenan challenged her dismissal from the Auburn University at Montgomery School of Nursing, alleging it was retaliation for her criticism of the school's point-based grading system in violation of the First Amendment. The court had previously entered summary judgment for the defendants on qualified-immunity grounds, and now denies Heenan's motion to alter or amend that judgment. The court reasoned that the record overwhelmingly supported dismissal for legitimate academic reasons—poor classroom performance, clinical evaluations, and unprofessional behavior—as assessed by multiple instructors, rather than for any protected speech, and that Heenan's self-assessment affidavit was not competent evidence to create a genuine factual dispute.

free speechcivil rights

In Heenan v. Rhodes, plaintiff Judith Heenan sued administrators and instructors at Auburn University at Montgomery's School of Nursing, alleging that her dismissal from the program violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by retaliating against her criticisms of the school's grading and disciplinary policies. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The court reasoned that, even assuming Heenan's speech was protected, the record showed she received a failing grade and was dismissed due to her poor academic performance, unprofessional behavior, and accumulation of disciplinary points under the school's published policies, rather than in retaliation for her complaints. Additionally, the court found that Heenan had been afforded ample due process through the school's grievance and review procedures.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

In Gray v. City of Montgomery, plaintiff Gwendolyn Gray, an African American employee in the city's Communications Department, sued under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that the City of Montgomery twice discriminated against her on the basis of race by failing to promote her to the Emergency Communications Sergeant I position and that the city retaliated against her on five occasions after she filed an administrative charge and this lawsuit. The city moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted the motion, holding that Gray failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in some instances or, where she did, that the city articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decisions—such as the exhaustion of prior applicant registers, superior qualifications of the selected candidates, and Gray's failure to reapply—that she could not show were pretextual. On the retaliation claims, the court similarly found that Gray could not demonstrate a causal link or pretext in the city's explanations, including differences in experience and qualifications between Gray and the promoted employees.

civil rightslabor & employment

James Ashe sued the City of Montgomery and Tony’s Automotive after city agents removed vehicles, lumber, and other items from his property during two separate public-nuisance abatement proceedings under city ordinance. His federal claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause; his state claims asserted trespass and negligence. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims, concluding that the city had provided adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before each abatement and that Ashe had not participated in the hearings or contested the findings. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remanded them to state court.

propertycivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In Washington v. Reding, Chapter 13 debtors proposed a plan paying nothing to unsecured creditors and excluded unemployment compensation from their current monthly income calculation on the ground that it qualified as a benefit under the Social Security Act. The trustee objected, and the bankruptcy court sustained the objection, ruling that unemployment compensation is not a Social Security Act benefit and therefore must be included in disposable income; the court conditionally dismissed the case. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that the plain statutory language of 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A)(B) excludes only benefits actually received under the Social Security Act and does not encompass state unemployment compensation. The court rejected the debtors' broader interpretation that would treat unemployment benefits as SSA benefits merely because the federal government partially funds state programs. The decision turned on ordinary meaning and statutory text rather than policy arguments about wage replacement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Pharmacists Mutual Insurance Company filing a federal declaratory judgment action under diversity jurisdiction against Godbee Medical Distributors and its employee Christy Caudle, seeking a ruling that the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify Godbee in a related state-court personal injury lawsuit. The underlying state suit alleges Caudle was injured by a power saw while helping build a rack at the company premises during work hours. The district court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on the duty-to-defend claim because the policy excludes coverage only for injuries 'in the course of employment,' the state complaint's allegations must be liberally construed in favor of coverage when ambiguous, and any factual dispute about whether the activity was business-related should be resolved in state court. The court directed the parties to address whether summary judgment on the duty to defend should instead be entered for Godbee Medical and dismissed the indemnification claim without prejudice as premature.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this adversary proceeding arising from a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, debtor Hasson Turner sued debt collector Universal Debt Solutions, Inc. (UDS) for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act based on two collection letters sent in 2007. The letters stated that UDS would proceed with recovery if it did not receive payment or written notice of a dispute within thirty days from the date of the letter. The bankruptcy court recommended granting summary judgment in part to each side, finding that the letters violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3) by requiring disputes to be in writing and by measuring the thirty-day period from the letter date rather than receipt. On de novo review, the district court overruled UDS’s objections to jurisdiction and to the merits findings, adopted the recommendation on liability, and remanded only the issues of statutory damages and attorney’s fees for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this bankruptcy appeal, debtor Toriano J. Avery sued mortgage servicer Wells Fargo for alleged violations of federal and state law arising from the assessment and collection of late fees and other charges on her home mortgage during her Chapter 13 case, even after bankruptcy court orders modified her plan to cure post-petition arrears. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo on all claims. On de novo review, the district court affirmed the judgment in part but reversed in part, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether certain fees remained improperly on Avery's account after the cure orders and whether Wells Fargo's record-keeping and crediting practices violated applicable law. The court remanded the remaining claims for further proceedings.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves defendant William Walter Ohoro, who faced six counts in an indictment, four of which stemmed from guns and drugs seized in a 2009 warranted search of his home. The court considered Ohoro's request for a Franks hearing to challenge the veracity of the affidavit supporting the search warrant, focusing on alleged inaccuracies about a confidential informant's tip, a traffic stop and marijuana odor, a drug dog's alerts and certifications, and related details. After reviewing evidence from a suppression hearing and the parties' arguments, the court granted the Franks hearing request in part and denied it in part, determining that some but not all claimed falsehoods or omissions were material enough to warrant further scrutiny for probable cause.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Fanseco M. Rose, who pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute a schedule I controlled substance after being found with BZP mixed with TFMPP and caffeine. Rose objected to the PSR's treatment of the drug as equivalent to MDMA for sentencing purposes and requested both a departure under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 for loss of caretaking support and a variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court overruled the objections to the PSR but granted the departure and variance requests, imposing a sentence of 24 months followed by three years of supervised release. The core reasoning centered on applying the guidelines' drug equivalency analysis, which showed the substance was less potent and dangerous than MDMA, combined with consideration of the defendant's age, family responsibilities, financial situation, and criminal history under the § 3553(a) factors.

criminal law

In United States v. Pendleton, the defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, using or carrying firearms in relation to a drug trafficking crime, and possessing a firearm as a felon. The court denied Pendleton's motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrant from his residence at 308 3rd Street in Montgomery, Alabama. The opinion explains that a confidential informant conducted controlled buys of crack cocaine at a nearby address, during which the dealer was observed obtaining drugs from and returning to 308 3rd Street, where Pendleton's vehicle was also parked; the supporting affidavit provided sufficient details linking the residence to drug activity to establish probable cause for the warrant.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case involved Tammy Edwards's sexual harassment claims against Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama (HMMA) and one of its employees, resulting in a jury verdict awarding her approximately $6 million in damages. After the trial, HMMA moved for a new trial, asserting that a juror had dishonestly answered during voir dire by not disclosing her prior application for employment at HMMA, which she had been rejected for after participating in training. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the motions for a new trial, concluding that the juror's misconduct deprived HMMA of its right to an impartial jury, as the evidence of her dishonesty was material and not discoverable earlier with due diligence, and the case was close enough that bias could have influenced the outcome.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Selenia Wilborn's claims against Southern Union State Community College, ADECA, ADPE, and two individual instructors for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII and Title IX, along with 14th Amendment claims via § 1983 and state-law torts, arising from her participation in a vocational truck-driving program. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after applying the Rule 56 standard, viewing facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and analyzing the evidence of harassment severity, reporting, and institutional relationships.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability