Nue Cheer Franklin v. Valdez Catledge; 7-C's International, LLC; and Catledge Land Management, LP

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/22/10 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090570 Nue Cheer F r a n k l i n v. Valdez Catledge; 7-C's I n t e r n a t i o n a l , LLC; and Catledge Land Management, LP Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-30) BRYAN, J u d g e . Nue C h e e r F r a n k l i n , the p l a i n t i f f below, appeals from a j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d b y t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t court") dismissing civil a c t i o n no. CV-09-30 (the c i r c u i t due t o l a c k o f 2090570 subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . We d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l i n p a r t and affirm i n part. On O c t o b e r 3 1 , 2008, F r a n k l i n , a c t i n g p r o s e , s u e d V a l d e z Catledge district seeking ("Valdez") court"), an award i n t h e Montgomery D i s t r i c t stating a claim o f damages Court ("the of breach of contract i n t h e amount and o f $2,650. On November 18, 2008, b e f o r e V a l d e z h a d b e e n s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s , F r a n k l i n moved t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t the circuit court. Attached to t r a n s f e r her action to t o her motion was an unsigned amended c o m p l a i n t , w h i c h named 7-C's I n t e r n a t i o n a l , L L C C's"), and Catledge Management"), Land as a d d i t i o n a l Management, LP d e f e n d a n t s ; added ("7- ("Catledge various tort c l a i m s ; a n d s o u g h t an a w a r d o f $25,000 i n c o m p e n s a t o r y damages and an u n s p e c i f i e d amount o f p u n i t i v e damages. On December 18, 2008, the Franklin's district court entered action to the c i r c u i t an court. order transferring 1 Because Franklin had successfully invoked the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , s u c h a t r a n s f e r was n o t a u t h o r i z e d b y A l a b a m a l a w . See Ex p a r t e L o f t i n , 540 So. 2d 65, 67 ( A l a . 1988) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a p l a i n t i f f who h a d f i l e d h i s action i n the d i s t r i c t court, had s t a t e d a claim of negligence, a n d h a d s o u g h t an amount o f damages t h a t was w i t h i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l l i m i t of the d i s t r i c t c o u r t had s u c c e s s f u l l y invoked the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the d i s t r i c t court e v e n i f t h e a c t u a l amount o f damages he h a d s u f f e r e d e x c e e d e d 1 2 2090570 After the d i s t r i c t court entered i t s order transferring F r a n k l i n ' s a c t i o n t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , V a l d e z was s e r v e d w i t h process on J a n u a r y circuit court to serve time. Valdez 2009. On 26, 2009. Franklin 7-C's o r C a t l e d g e April 17, judgment motion in 2009, Franklin on F e b r u a r y moved for a 20, summary r e g a r d i n g F r a n k l i n ' s summary- on June 30, 2009, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , on J u l y 2009, i s s u e d an o r d e r e n t e r i n g a j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t V a l d e z t h e amount motions o f $550. seeking the On July recusal 28, of a s s i g n e d t o t h e a c t i o n , a new t r i a l , and Management a t t h a t answered F r a n k l i n ' s complaint judgment. F o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g 15, d i d not i n s t r u c t the Catledge Management as 2009, the Franklin filed circuit-court judge a n d t h e a d d i t i o n o f 7-C's defendants. On July 31, 2009, F r a n k l i n i n s t r u c t e d t h e c i r c u i t - c o u r t c l e r k t o s e r v e 7-C's a n d Catledge Management with process, and t h e y were served judge assigned on A u g u s t 3, 2009. Thereafter, the circuit-court to the t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l l i m i t o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a n d t h a t , once he h a d s u c c e s s f u l l y i n v o k e d t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , a t r a n s f e r o f h i s a c t i o n t o c i r c u i t c o u r t b a s e d on an amendment o f h i s c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g an amount o f damages g r e a t e r than the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l l i m i t of the d i s t r i c t court was i m p r o p e r ) . 3 2090570 a c t i o n r e c u s e d h i m s e l f , and t h e a c t i o n was a s s i g n e d t o a n o t h e r c i r c u i t - c o u r t j u d g e , who then assigned to a a l s o r e c u s e d h i m s e l f . The a c t i o n third circuit-court court never r u l e d on F r a n k l i n ' s m o t i o n that was motion d e n i e d by The f o r a new o p e r a t i o n of 2009. See R u l e 59.1, A l a . R. n o t i c e of appeal w i t h i n judge. law circuit and October on trial, 26, C i v . P. F r a n k l i n d i d n o t f i l e 42 d a y s a f t e r O c t o b e r 26, C's and C a t l e d g e Management, and 7-C's 2010, of F r a n k l i n ' s action. On February M a r c h 2, 2010, circuit F r a n k l i n f i l e d a postjudgment c o u r t d e n i e d on M a r c h 5, A l s o on M a r c h 5, 2010, to l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n , the this 22, f o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g those motions, the c i r c u i t ground t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t l a c k e d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . to 7- and C a t l e d g e Management c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n on t h e Due a 2009. F r a n k l i n moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o moved f o r a d i s m i s s a l was supreme c o u r t , motion, which the 2010. F r a n k l i n appealed to t h i s a threshold court. t h i s c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal which transferred the c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code As On matter, Valdez, 7-C's, appeal back to 1975. and Catledge Management move t h i s c o u r t t o d i s m i s s F r a n k l i n ' s a p p e a l on t h e 4 2090570 ground that support of her notice their o f a p p e a l was n o t t i m e l y motion, Valdez, 7-C's, and filed. In Catledge Management a r g u e t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s J u l y 15, 2009, o r d e r e n t e r i n g a j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t V a l d e z i n t h e amount o f $550 was a final notice trial judgment and t h a t , of appeal within because F r a n k l i n 42 d a y s a f t e r d i d not f i l e her motion a f o r a new was d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on O c t o b e r 26, 2009, h e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was n o t t i m e l y filed. R u l e 4 ( f ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s : "When t h e r e a r e m u l t i p l e d e f e n d a n t s a n d t h e summons ... a n d t h e c o m p l a i n t have been s e r v e d on one o r more, b u t n o t a l l , o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s , t h e p l a i n t i f f may p r o c e e d t o j u d g m e n t as t o t h e d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s on whom p r o c e s s h a s been s e r v e d a n d , i f the j u d g m e n t as t o t h e d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s who have been s e r v e d i s f i n a l i n a l l o t h e r r e s p e c t s , i t s h a l l be a f i n a l judgment. A f t e r t h e e n t r y o f judgment, i f t h e p l a i n t i f f i s a b l e t o o b t a i n s e r v i c e on a d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s n o t p r e v i o u s l y s e r v e d (except, however, defendants designated as f i c t i t i o u s p a r t i e s as a l l o w e d b y R u l e 9 ( h ) , who s h a l l be deemed t o have b e e n d i s m i s s e d v o l u n t a r i l y when t h e c a s e was a n n o u n c e d r e a d y f o r t r i a l a g a i n s t o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s s u e d b y t h e i r t r u e names), t h e c o u r t s h a l l h e a r a n d d e t e r m i n e t h e m a t t e r as t o s u c h d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e same manner as i f such d e f e n d a n t o r d e f e n d a n t s had o r i g i n a l l y been brought i n t o c o u r t , b u t such defendant o r defendants s h a l l be a l l o w e d t h e b e n e f i t o f a n y payment o r s a t i s f a c t i o n t h a t may have been made on t h e j u d g m e n t previously entered i n the a c t i o n . " Thus, u n d e r R u l e 4 ( f ) , t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d on J u l y 15, 2009, 5 2090570 against Valdez, served with t h e o n l y d e f e n d a n t who process, was respect to Valdez. See So. 344 a Civ. 2d (Ala. final, been appealable judgment with Q u a l i t y Cas. B e d e l l v. App. a t t h a t t i m e had I n s . Co., 958 2006); and Williams v. T e l e v i s i o n S t a t i o n s o f B i r m i n g h a m , I n c . , 959 So. 2d 1120 Civ. 25 App. 2 0 0 6 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s by Ex p a r t e So. 3d 1152 required to f i l e (Ala. 2007). to perfect an appeal 4(a)(1) and Because F r a n k l i n d i d not days after operation the of law denial on was the trial App. P.; of her October 26, 2009, she Valdez. we appeal with respect because Rule court with to the 7-C's process and and the a to the motion within 42 trial by new failed to judgment to Civ. P., authorized Rules Williams. file a against dismiss judgment a g a i n s t V a l d e z . 4 ( f ) , A l a . R. to proceed with against grant appeal for 2009, i n See B e d e l l ; and motion with respect Therefore, judgment. a n o t i c e of t i m e l y n o t i c e of appeal Id. on O c t o b e r 26, that file Luker, Franklin from 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. (Ala. w i t h i n 42 d a y s a f t e r a n o t i c e of appeal d e n i a l o f h e r m o t i o n f o r a new order Consequently, Fox the However, the circuit the a d j u d i c a t i o n of F r a n k l i n ' s claims Catledge Management a f t e r t h e y were served because Franklin filed 6 a n o t i c e of appeal 2090570 within 42 d a y s a f t e r challenging court the the d e n i a l the February dismissing appeal with of her postjudgment 22, 2010, j u d g m e n t motion of the c i r c u i t t h o s e c l a i m s , we deny t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s respect to that judgment. The F e b r u a r y 22, 2010, j u d g m e n t h e l d , among o t h e r things, that the c i r c u i t court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction Franklin's court Alabama action because, the law d i d not authorize circuit the t r a n s f e r of over concluded, Franklin's a c t i o n t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a f t e r she h a d s u c c e s s f u l l y i n v o k e d the jurisdiction of the d i s t r i c t court. We agree w i t h that conclusion. By filing her action i n d i s t r i c t court, of breach of c o n t r a c t , was w i t h i n and s e e k i n g the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l stating a claim an amount o f damages limit of the d i s t r i c t that court, F r a n k l i n s u c c e s s f u l l y invoked the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the d i s t r i c t court. See Ex p a r t e Loftin, 540 So. 2d 65, 67 ( A l a . 1988) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a p l a i n t i f f who f i l e d h i s a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t court, stated a claim of negligence, damages district that court was within the and s o u g h t an amount o f jurisdictional limit of the had s u c c e s s f u l l y i n v o k e d the j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e v e n i f t h e a c t u a l amount o f damages he h a d 7 2090570 suffered court). exceeded Having the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l limit of the d i s t r i c t s u c c e s s f u l l y invoked the j u r i s d i c t i o n d i s t r i c t court, of the F r a n k l i n c o u l d o n l y s e e k damages i n e x c e s s o f the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l l i m i t o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t by v o l u n t a r i l y d i s m i s s i n g , w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e , t h e a c t i o n she h a d f i l e d i n t h e district that court sought and f i l i n g an amount a new a c t i o n of damages i n the c i r c u i t that was court within the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . I d . ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t , when the d i s t r i c t court has j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r an a c t i o n the p l a i n t i f f i n t h a t c o u r t , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e f i l e d by procedure f o r the p l a i n t i f f t o i n v o k e i n o r d e r t o s e e k damages i n e x c e s s o f t h e jurisdictional plaintiff her limit of the d i s t r i c t court to voluntarily dismiss, action i n the d i s t r i c t court circuit court). As t h e c i r c u i t w o u l d be f o r t h e without prejudice, and f i l e court h i s or a new a c t i o n i n t h e correctly a c t i o n now b e f o r e u s , A l a b a m a l a w does n o t a l l o w held i n the a plaintiff to invoke s u c c e s s f u l l y the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the d i s t r i c t court, s u b s e q u e n t l y amend h i s o r h e r c o m p l a i n t t o s e e k an amount o f damages i n e x c e s s o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l l i m i t of the d i s t r i c t c o u r t , and s e e k a t r a n s f e r o f t h e a c t i o n t o t h e c i r c u i t Id. (reversing a d e c i s i o n of t h i s 8 court granting court. a petition 2090570 for writ a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e c i r c u i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g the d i s t r i c t p l a i n t i f f t o amend h i s c o m p l a i n t t h a t exceeded the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l as an i n i t i a l court t o grant a court to allow the t o s e e k an amount o f damages limit of the d i s t r i c t court step toward seeking a t r a n s f e r of h i s a c t i o n t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e circuit against court insofar as 7-C's a n d C a t l e d g e lacked subject-matter i t dismissed Franklin's claims Management on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t jurisdiction. AFFIRMED I N PART; APPEAL DISMISSED I N PART. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n Moore, J . , c o n c u r s specially. 9 a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . 2090570 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g specially. I f u l l y concur t h a t t h i s regard to the Catledge J u l y 15, ("Valdez") c o u r t must d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l 2009, j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d due to i t s untimeliness c o u r t must a f f i r m t h e F e b r u a r y 22, the action Catledge was against 7-C's 2010, 7-C's and c i r c u i t court also lacked subject-matter claims f i l e d against Valdez, and, 2009, judgment a g a i n s t Valdez matter jurisdiction. Because appeal from 15, the July p o w e r l e s s t o t a k e any of 2009, the the the July f o r l a c k of subject- untimeliness judgment, this 15, of court the is a c t i o n i n regard to t h a t v o i d judgment; 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., judgment s e t over j u r i s d i c t i o n over the h o w e v e r , any p a r t y a g g r i e v e d by t h a t j u d g m e n t may the concludes Management, accordingly, i s void which jurisdiction Catledge and However, same r e a s o n s t h e m a i n o p i n i o n f i l e d against this ("7-C's"), ( " C a t l e d g e Management"), t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t l a c k e d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r claims that t r a n s f e r r e d from the d i s t r i c t c o u r t . I note t h a t , f o r the the and Valdez judgment d i s m i s s i n g I n t e r n a t i o n a l , LLC L a n d Management, LP improperly against in f i l e a Rule m o t i o n i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o have aside. 10

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.