Alabama Appellate Opinions Released December 1, 2017
We are committed to sharing decisions and providing legal updates that may be beneficial to you and your teams. Included below are summaries of cases recently released by Alabama Appellate Courts. Please reach out to any member of our Appellate Practice  group with any questions.

Warm regards,
Team Huie

Alabama Appellate Opinions Released 
December 1, 2017
Alabama Supreme Court
Plaintiff Not Allowed to Add Defendants Under Rule 15 After Statute of Limitations Expired

Ex parte Profit Boost Marketing, Inc., d/b/a Hometown Values Coupon Magazine

Mike Zak, the sole proprietor of a coupon distributor, brought an action against several defendants in the Circuit Court of Cullman County on theories including defamation, negligence, and wantonness / gross negligence. After propounding several sets of discovery upon the defendants, Zak amended his complaint to include two additional counts against the City of Arab pursuant to § 1983, alleging depravation and violations of his civil rights, and inadequate training and supervision on the part of the City. After the case was removed to federal court and the federal court dismissed the two § 1983 claims, the matter was remanded to the Marshall County Circuit Court.

On March 1, 2016 – after the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations period – Zak filed a second amended complaint which named HVCM and Richard Hagedorn as additional defendants, rather than substituting them for fictitious defendants listed in the original complaint. In addition to the claims contained in his original complaint, Zak added counts of “tortious interference with business” and civil conspiracy. After the trial court denied HVCM’s first motion to dismiss, HVCM filed a second motion on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it, and that Zak’s claims were time-barred. The trial court again denied the motion, and HVCM petitioned for mandamus relief.

The Alabama Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in denying HVCM’s motion requesting dismissal of Zak’s claims on statute of limitations grounds. HVCM argued in its petition that Zak’s claims asserted in the amended complaint were filed after the expiration of the statute of limitations and did not relate back to the original complaint. The Court agreed. It acknowledged that Zak did not substitute HVCM for fictitious defendants in the original complaint, but instead added HVCM as an additional defendant. Furthermore, the Court noted that HVCM did not receive notice of Zak’s original action within the time frame specified by Rule 15 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, the Court issued the writ of mandamus sought by HVCM.
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
Community College’s Termination Decision Reinstated

Lawson State Community College v. Mitchell

Mitchell served as an administrative assistant in Lawson State’s athletic department. One of her duties in that role was to coordinate with an insurance company for payments and claims for athletes who were injured. Lawson State’s athletic director asked Mitchell to file a claim on behalf of a student who was attending Lawson State on an athletic scholarship. Mitchell refused. She informed the athletic director that the student had not undergone a physical examination, and therefore was not an eligible player under the insurance policy. When Mitchell was asked to forward the claim form to Lawson State’s administrative vice president so she could file the claim, Mitchell responded that she had nothing to provide. At a subsequent meeting, Mitchell informed the vice president that she did not have the form – that she had thrown the form away. As a result of Mitchell’s behavior at the meeting, the vice president recommended that Mitchell be terminated. The vice president provided Mitchell with written notice of her recommendation. The president of Lawson State adopted the recommendation.

Mitchell appealed the decision in accordance with the Students First Act of 2011, and Lawson State submitted the record of termination to a hearing officer designated to consider the appeal. Although the hearing officer accepted the president’s factual findings, it determined that the sanction imposed on Mitchell was “harsh and severe and not rationally related to her actions.” The hearing officer determined that the termination rose to the level of being “arbitrary and capricious,” and remanded the matter for consideration of a lesser penalty. Lawson State appealed to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, which reversed the decision of the hearing officer. The court held that terminating Mitchell was not so unreasonable so as to “shock the sense of justice and indicate lack of fair and careful consideration.” Thus, the court reinstated the president’s decision.
"The leading rule for the lawyer, as for the man of every other calling, is diligence. Leave nothing for to-morrow which can be done to-day. Never let your correspondence fall behind."  ~Abraham Lincoln
HUIE APPELLATE PRACTICE GROUP
No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
Huie: Stand Firm