(251) 299-0101

Reported Decisions

  • Jones v. Depuy Synthes Products, Inc,

    [Case No. 7:17-cv-01778-LSC, Nov. 20, 2018] 2018 WL 6431013 (N.D. Ala. 2018) (United States District Court Judge L. Scott Coogler). The district court denies a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) motion to strike plaintiffs' amended complaint and Rule 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D) motion to strike plaintiffs' nationwide class action allegations, contending that component parts of Depuy's ATTUNE total knee replacement systems are defective. The district court rejects Depuy's contentions that plaintiffs' amended complaint was due to be stricken because plaintiffs could not meet the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) or the superiority and preponderance requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). The court also rejects Depuy's contention that a plaintiff in a federal class-action must establish personal jurisdiction over all unnamed putative class members given the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017).

    To read the opinion, click here.
  • Ex parte Mobile Infirmary Association d/b/a Mobile Infirmary Medical Center

    Alabama Supreme Court Case No. 1170993 (Aug. 16, 2018). The Court unanimously (Stuart, C.J., and Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Main, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, and Mendheim, JJ., concur) denies without opinion the fourth petition for a writ of mandamus arising from the death of Debra Weldon Dotson at Mobile Infirmary in 2016 (see Case Nos. 1170825 (Infirmary's petition denied July 27, 2018; 1160769 (Infirmary's petition denied September 12, 2017); and 1160645 (Infirmary's petition dismissed June 2, 2017)). In this petition, the Infirmary sought dismissal of the wrongful death complaint under authority of § 6-5-440, Ala. Code 1975 (Alabama's "abatement" or "prior pending action" statute). Plaintiff demonstrated that the issues presented by the petition were moot, that there was no identity of parties between the two medical negligence wrongful death actions as required for invocation of § 6-5-440, and that the Infirmary should be judicially estopped from invoking § 6-5-440 under the doctrine prohibiting inconsistent positions.

  • Thomas Jones, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, etc. v. Singing River Health Services Foundation, et al.

    Thomas Jones, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, etc. v. Singing River Health Services Foundation, et al., [Ms. 18-60130, Aug. 6, 2018] __ Fed. Appx. __ (5th Cir. 2018) (unpublished pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5). The Fifth Circuit panel unanimously affirms this $149,950,000 class action settlement agreement for members of the Singing River Health System Employees Retirement Plan and Trust for claims arising from the hospital system's failure to make annual required contributions to the Plan from 2009 to 2014 needed to maintain the Plan's fiscal integrity. The court holds that the district court, upon remand from Jones v. Singing River Health Servs. Found., 865 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2017), had properly addressed four questions concerning the propriety of the settlement.

  • Oasis Legal Finance, LLC v. James Marquez and Kennedy Dixon, et al.

    In Oasis Legal Finance, LLC v. James Marquez and Kennedy Dixon, et al., No. 17-90024-Q, (11th Cir. July 26, 2018), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied without opinion the defendant’s petition for permission to appeal an order entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama remanding this class action case to the Mobile County Circuit Court. The district court found that 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) rendered this case non-removable despite a claim of federal subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). In their response to Oasis’s Petition, plaintiffs argued that the questions Oasis presented to the Eleventh Circuit did not present an unsettled CAFA-related question likely to arise in future cases, as is required to obtain appellate review of a remand order involving a class action case.

  • Ex parte Mobile Infirmary Association d/b/a Mobile Infirmary Medical Center

    [Ms. 1170825, July 27, 2018] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2018). The Supreme Court (Stuart, C.J., and Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Main, Bryan, Sellers, and Mendheim, J.J., concur) denies yet another petition for writ of mandamus (the third petition filed in the case concerning Debra Dotson's death at Mobile Infirmary in July 2016), contending the Mobile Circuit Court erred in granting plaintiff's motion to permit substitution of a successor personal representative and in denying the Infirmary's motion to dismiss the wrongful death action premised upon an alleged want of capacity by the original personal representative to file the action.

  • Ex parte FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Alabama Supreme Court Case No. 1170648, May 1, 2018, __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2018

    The Supreme Court of Alabama on May 1, 2018, dismissed a petition for writ of mandamus filed by FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., in which FedEx contended the Circuit Court of Mobile County exceeded its discretion when it ordered production of documents responsive to plaintiff's discovery requests in a personal injury action. The Court rejected FedEx's contentions that its discovery obligations would be unduly burdensome.

  • Ex parte Oasis Legal Finance, LLC

    In re: James Marquez v. GNS & Associates, Inc., Oasis Legal Finance, LLC, et al, [Ms. 1170431, Ala. Mar. 22, 2018]. The Supreme Court denies a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Oasis Legal Finance, LLC, a foreign limited liability corporation not qualified to do business in the State of Alabama, which sought an order directing the Mobile Circuit Court to enforce an outbound forum selection clause. Plaintiffs alleged Oasis's so-called "purchase agreements," whereby it offered cash advances to financially vulnerable Alabamians with workers' compensation claims, were prohibited by §§ 25-5-231 and 25-5-86(2), Ala. Code 1975, parts of the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act which characterize such activities as a crime. Plaintiffs invoked § 10A-1-7.21(a), Alabama's "door-closing statute," which commands that a non-qualified foreign corporation "may not maintain any action, suit, or proceeding in any court of this State...." The Court (Stuart, C.J., and Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Main, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur; Sellers and Mendheim, JJ, dissent) denied the petition for writ of mandamus, without opinion, and dismissed Oasis's emergency motion for stay as moot. On May 1, 2018, Oasis Legal Finance, LLC’s application for rehearing was denied.

  • McCallan v. Wilkins

    2018 WL 1384107, __ F.Supp.3d __ (M.D. Ala. Mar. 19, 2018) (W. Keith Watkins, Chief U.S. District Judge). The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama dismisses McCallan's appeal from a U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama order continuing McCallan's incarceration based on an earlier finding of civil contempt of court for McCallan's willful failure to comply with previous orders compelling post-judgment discovery. Having been incarcerated for contempt on October 23, 2017, McCallan sought review by the district court contending the order of continuing incarceration was a final appealable order or that he should be granted a permissive emergency appeal from an interlocutory order. The district court granted the bankruptcy trustee's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, denied McCallan's motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal, and denied McCallan's emergency motion to expedite the appeal.

Page of 12

Contact Us Today

  • Please enter your name.
  • This isn't a valid email address.
    Please enter your email.
  • This isn't a valid phone number.
    Please enter your phone number.
    You entered an invalid number.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.