Ex parte Stan Simpson, individuallly and as mayor of the Town of Gurley. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: M&N Metals, Inc. v. Town of Gurley et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/16/09 N o t i c e : This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n before 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 Reporter o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e Courts, 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080981 Ex p a r t e S t a n Simpson, i n d i v i d u a l l y of and as mayor o f t h e Town Gurley PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : M&N M a t e r i a l s , I n c . v. Town o f G u r l e y e t a l . ) 1081027 Ex p a r t e Town o f G u r l e y PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: M&N M a t e r i a l s , Inc. v. Town o f G u r l e y e t a l . ) (Madison C i r c u i t C o u r t , WOODALL, Justice. The Town individually t h i s Court grant their brought the of motions Town") o f t h e Town, i n part and g r a n t i n 2003. of mountain p r o p e r t y purchased area convenience, property." will The p r o p e r t y the residence t o be u s e d refer was of Stan deny Background M&N By June additional to a c q u i r e d 160 as a r o c k q u a r r y f o r use i n connection we We them i n p a r t . At that time, 109 as t o a l l c l a i m s I n c . ("M&N"). of Madison County. approximately unincorporated Simpson, court to F a c t u a l and P r o c e d u r a l area Stan petition f o r a summary j u d g m e n t was f o r m e d unincorporated and separately a g a i n s t t h e m b y M&N M a t e r i a l s , M&N from ("the o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e t r i a l f o rw r i t s I. For Gurley and as mayor petitions acres CV-05-731) 2004, acres with i t had in the the quarry. acres as " t h e located approximately one m i l e Simpson. 2 t h e 269 i n an 1080981, 1081027 In July 2003, more than a year before his election as m a y o r o f t h e Town, S i m p s o n b e c a m e t h e c h a i r p e r s o n o f a g r o u p of r e s i d e n t s o f t h e Town Gurley ("the CBG"). known as t h e C i t i z e n s Between J u l y for a Better 2003 a n d November 2 3 , 2004, t h e CBG a c t i v e l y o p p o s e d t h e o p e r a t i o n o f a r o c k q u a r r y on t h e M&N property. Resolution On July 17, no. 216, w h i c h 2003, t h e Town council adopted stated, i n pertinent part: "WHEREAS, t h e Town C o u n c i l o f t h e Town o f G u r l e y has o b t a i n e d i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t of E n v i r o n m e n t a l Management t h a t a c o r p o r a t i o n by t h e name o f M&N, I n c o r p o r a t e d , has a p p l i e d f o r a permit t o operate a rock quarry near the c o r p o r a t e l i m i t s o f t h e Town o f G u r l e y , a n d "WHEREAS, t h e Town C o u n c i l h a s s e r i o u s c o n c e r n s r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t s such a r o c k q u a r r y would have on (1) a i r q u a l i t y , (2) damage f r o m b l a s t i n g t o homes a n d b u s i n e s s e s , (3) l a r g e v o l u m e s o f t r a f f i c on G u r l e y P i k e ( t h e m a i n s e r v i c e r o a d f o r M a d i s o n County Elementary S c h o o l ) , (4) damage t o e x i s t i n g s t r e e t s b y h e a v y t r u c k s a n d (5) damage t o t h e Town's w a t e r s t o r a g e t a n k l o c a t e d on G u r l e y P i k e , "NOW, THEREFORE, be i t r e s o l v e d t h a t t h e Town o f G u r l e y opposes the l o c a t i o n of a rock quarry near t h e c o r p o r a t e l i m i t s o f t h e Town." Simpson opposition spoke to often the quarry. Senator Lowell Barron enlist their aid at Town Also, council t h e CBG meetings contacted in State and S t a t e R e p r e s e n t a t i v e A l b e r t H a l l t o in opposing 3 the quarry. Simpson and 1080981, 1081027 Representative Hall c o l l a b o r a t e d on House Bill 170, a bill t h a t R e p r e s e n t a t i v e H a l l i n t r o d u c e d i n the Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e during t h e 2004 l e g i s l a t i v e l a w on F e b r u a r y authorized referendum. property. the According was to to give proposal The applications conducted passed denied. i m m e d i a t e m o r a t o r i u m on f o r use p e r m i t s , building permits, zoning c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , or business licenses In approximately the office of mayor relating April of May 4, and votes. business the acceptance the 2004, of right-of-way variances, special exceptions t o " the property. 2004, S i m p s o n began a campaign f o r Gurley. During to " f i g h t against the rock quarry." August 24, and t o 23 the of the 13, 2004, permits, pledged 2004, of the use on A p r i l On 2004, annexation purpose over by 1 9 1 v o t e s was became on t h e b a s i s o f a a p p l i e d t o t h e Town f o r a application "an the t h e Town c o n t r o l 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , M&N imposed which 2004-19, A l a . A c t s Simpson, The r e f e r e n d u m was On A p r i l Town bill, o f t h e Town's r e s i d e n t s i n a s p e c i a l annexation license. 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , s e e A c t No. The t h e Town t o a n n e x M&N's p r o p e r t y m a j o r i t y vote annexation session. assumed the 4 duties his campaign, he He was e l e c t e d o n of the office on 1080981, October 1081027 4, 2004, member o f t h e Town Meanwhile, agreement Vulcan with Vulcan The o f M&N's property On other 12, things, a M&N Lands, 2004, Inc. entered into ("Vulcan option to purchase o p t i o n was voting Lands"), the an whereby property t o e x p i r e on November 1 5 , failure to acquire Nevertheless, on November to Vulcan t h a t day, disposition warranty an among for 2004. Lands f a i l e d to e x e r c i s e i t s o p t i o n , a c c o r d i n g to Town. for July L a n d s a c q u i r e d an because the as, council. on $3.75 m i l l i o n . Vulcan serving of 23, license 2 0 0 4 , M&N from sold the Lands. M&N the deed by a business M&N, executed two property. w h i c h M&N One sold u n d i s c l o s e d amount. documents In the an relating document property was a to the general to Vulcan Lands i n t e r r o g a t o r y answer, M&N s t a t e d : "Vulcan backed out [ o f the o p t i o n p r i c e ] because of City of Gurley [ b u s i n e s s ] l i c e n s e . reason [ t h a t was] would not c l o s e . " of rights or quoted from The ... warranty This reason Vulcan ... as no [ i s the] sole t o why Vulcan d e e d c o n t a i n e d no r e s e r v a t i o n s ownership. T h a t same d a y , M&N e n t e r e d i n t o a r o y a l t y agreement ("the a g r e e m e n t " ) w i t h " V u l c a n C o n s t r u c t i o n M a t e r i a l s LP, a D e l a w a r e 5 1080981, 1081027 Limited Partnership, Division" ("Vulcan pertinent by and through i t s Southern & G u l f Materials"). The a g r e e m e n t Coast provided, part: "WHEREAS, c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s l y w i t h t h e e x e c u t i o n and d e l i v e r y o f t h i s A g r e e m e n t , V u l c a n [ M a t e r i a l s ] (or i t s a f f i l i a t e s ) and [M&N] a r e e x e c u t i n g other agreements whereby, among other understandings, [Vulcan Lands] w i l l acquire t i t l e t o approximately 269 acres of real property near [ t h e Town] i n M a d i s o n C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , h e r e t o f o r e owned b y [ M & N ] ('the Property'); "WHEREAS, V u l c a n [ M a t e r i a l s ] i s e n g a g e d i n t h e business of mining, crushing, producing, d i s t r i b u t i n g , t r a n s p o r t i n g , and marketing o f crushed stone products used i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n industry ('Quarrying Operations'); "WHEREAS, V u l c a n [ M a t e r i a l s ] i n t e n d s t o e n t e r i n t o a l e a s e arrangement w i t h V u l c a n [Lands] that w i l l allow Vulcan [Materials] t o conduct Quarrying O p e r a t i o n s on t h e P r o p e r t y ; a n d "WHEREAS, t h e p a r t i e s d e s i r e t o s e t f o r t h t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g c o n c e r n i n g payment o f r o y a l t i e s t o [M&N] and other terms r e l a t e d t o t h e s a l e by Vulcan [Materials] o f crushed stone c o n s t r u c t i o n aggregates ('Stone') r e c o v e r e d f r o m t h e P r o p e r t y . "NOW, THEREFORE, f o r a n d i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e mutual e x e c u t i o n o f t h i s Agreement and t h e covenants and c o n d i t i o n s c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n , a n d o t h e r good a n d valuable c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e r e c e i p t and s u f f i c i e n c y of which i s hereby acknowledged, t h e p a r t i e s hereto do a g r e e a s f o l l o w s " (Emphasis added.) 6 i n 1080981, 1081027 Under t h e agreement, "earned royalties," Average Annual removed from t h e Property a Price Materials were which Sales each C o n t r a c t Year Vulcan "equivalent ... o f S t o n e was t o pay to 5% quarried, of the sold (the 'Earned R o y a l t y ( i e s ) ' ) o f t h e Term." "minimum r o y a l t y p a y m e n t " M&N and during The agreement p r o v i d e d f o r i n the following terms: " I f the t o t a l of a l l Earned R o y a l t i e s payable by Vulcan [Materials] by the end of a Contract Year i s less than F i f t y Thousand D o l l a r s ($50,000) ( t h e ' M i n i m u m ' ) , V u l c a n [ M a t e r i a l s ] s h a l l p a y [M&N] a n additional royalty payment equivalent to the d i f f e r e n c e between t h e Earned R o y a l t i e s w i t h respect t o t h a t C o n t r a c t y e a r a n d $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 , w h i c h amount i s hereinafter referenced as the 'Earned Royalty Shortfall.'" According property and t o M&N, was a c t u a l l y $ 1 m i l l i o n , obligations The the consideration the royalty of the payments due u n d e r t h e agreement. agreement a l s o obligation plus f o r the sale stated that Vulcan Materials h a d "no to mine": "[M&N] a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t V u l c a n [Materials] shall have t h e r i g h t , b u t n o t t h e o b l i g a t i o n , t o conduct Q u a r r y i n g O p e r a t i o n s on t h e P r o p e r t y ... d u r i n g t h e Term, i t b e i n g a g r e e d t h a t t h e payment o f t h e E a r n e d Royalty Shortfall . .. a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n p a i d by Vulcan [ M a t e r i a l s ] a t t h e time o f conveyance o f t h e P r o p e r t y i s made i n l i e u o f a n y s u c h o b l i g a t i o n . " (Emphasis added.) 7 1080981, 1081027 Finally, t h e agreement provided that Vulcan Materials w o u l d b e " r e l i e v e d f r o m t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o make a n y p a y m e n t s t o [M&N]" i f prevented Quarrying Operations s t a t e d : "Vulcan be "by o p e r a t i o n suspended on conducting discretion, shall to litigate, what law" i n c l u d e d condemnation, eminent domain, restrictions. In Vulcan, action ... shall prevented from in i t s sole ( i f any) s h a l l be oppose o r o t h e r w i s e c h a l l e n g e an e v e n t c o n s t i t u t i n g O p e r a t i o n o f Law." of In particular, i t i t i s so Operations. determine "conducting obligations t o perform the period Quarrying undertaken the Property." [Materials'] during o f l a w " from and that zoning (Emphasis added.) "Operation the exercise of the right or connection, such other t h e agreement of land-use further provided: " I n t h e e v e n t o f a T a k i n g o f t h e P r o p e r t y ... , [M&N] h e r e b y assigns to Vulcan [Materials] i t s c l a i m , i n t e r e s t , o r r i g h t ( i f any) i n any award t h a t may b e made i n s u c h p r o c e e d i n g . Further, [M&N] agrees t h a t V u l c a n [ M a t e r i a l s ] s h a l l have t h e s o l e r i g h t and o b l i g a t i o n t o seek compensation and r e t a i n damages c a u s e d b y t h e T a k i n g . " (Emphasis added.) On J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , V u l c a n M a t e r i a l s a p p l i e d t o t h e Town for a license to operate the business 8 of "Quarrying and 1080981, 1081027 Processing Construction same n i g h t , which Aggregates" on the property. t h e Town c o u n c i l a d o p t e d O r d i n a n c e designated the property as an That no. 2004-284, agricultural zone. Simpson, as mayor, s u b s e q u e n t l y s e n t V u l c a n M a t e r i a l s a l e t t e r denying the "'Quarrying use application, and P r o c e s s i n g permitted under now a p p l i c a b l e that he license the was denial to the property directly has p a i d M&N defendants the individual behalf and against capacity (3) to with t o deny t h e quarry, were The business Simpson. Vulcan Vulcan "Simpson as "the at a l l times was acting claims against or contractual named Lands, Materials h i s representative 9 Also (1) V u l c a n collectively him and/or o f t h e Town." interference the rock The c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d t h a t claims admits As a consequence o f s u e d t h e Town a n d referred Simpson royalties. i n M&N's c o m p l a i n t Materials, entities"). no classification i n the decision to operate part: Aggregates' i s not a i n question." involved of permission (hereinafter to Construction pertinent t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l [zoning] S u b s e q u e n t l y , M&N Vulcan i n application of Vulcan Materials. Materials as stating, Company Vulcan relevant i n his capacity Simpson (2) on included relations and 1080981, 1081027 negligence and/or injunctive relief. inverse The The and/or Vulcan provisions Vulcan and shall which be would entities be have by any declaratory Simpson and Simpson argued, absolute the property, challenged a also sought "by virtue the (1975), which r e q u i r e s that who have the declaration." by "motion to or be claim excused any The from I n that motion, they "agree[d] to entered with regard to be [M&N's] claim." Town e a c h m o v e d among o t h e r immunity included of parties filed Town and named affected judgment judgment the and/or relief. were made p a r t i c i p a t i o n at t r i a l . " bound against declaratory negligence injunctive entities sought o f A l a . C o d e § 6-6-227 persons interest and claims condemnation declaratory all wantonness for any e i t h e r before M&N's s t a n d i n g things, actions or a f t e r he f o r a summary that he he took was judgment. entitled relating became mayor. to b r i n g the action. The to to the The Town Town also a d o p t e d Simpson's summary-judgment m o t i o n and b r i e f i n s u p p o r t of the motion. among o t h e r y e a r s ago, In opposition to the motions, M&N presented, t h i n g s , e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Simpson had, pleaded g u i l t y t o two 10 misdemeanor c r i m i n a l many charges 1080981, in 1081027 Tennessee. On A p r i l 16, 2009, the t r i a l court denied the motions. Simpson filed his petition 1 0 8 0 9 8 1 ; t h e Town f i l e d no. 1081027. prosecute asserts Both i t s petition petitions the underlying the defense b a s e d on Simpson's o n May 8, 2 0 0 9 , of absolute alleging contractual relations petition seeks court t o vacate and to him and a writ against the claim Similarly, Simpson's negligence a judgment Mandamus motion review "grounded the g e n e r a l (1) d i r e c t i n g 16, 2009, d e n y i n g (Ala. 483 of motions. (Ala. 2008); 2003). I n those Each trial Simpson's o f t h e movant. the on a c l a i m the or a n d (2) o r d e r i n g i t denial of of immunity" a summary-judgment i s an e x c e p t i o n rule against i n t e r l o c u t o r y review summary-judgment 478, i n favor business and/or wantonness. t h e Town's s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s , enter petition immunity against the interference with of April to immunity o f mandamus i t s order standing t h e Town's alleged negligence. against M&N's Also, p e t i t i o n asserts the defense of absolute claims no. o n May 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , i n c a s e challenge action. i n case Ex p a r t e Ex p a r t e Hudson, exceptional 11 Auburn to of the d e n i a l of Univ., 6 So. 3d 866 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 5 , 1 1 2 0 cases, "[w]e c o n f i n e our 1080981, 1081027 interlocutory immunity. tort the review Matters trial relevant court petitioner trial germane to the merits " to the issue of of the underlying 866 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 2 0 . "[m]andamus challenges review i s available the subject-matter c o u r t b a s e d on t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s bring the lawsuit." 288, 292 judgment legal writ A writ on i m m u n i t y right o f mandamus will grounds i n the petitioner issue only the of the alleged lack of standing HealthSouth that where jurisdiction Ex p a r t e (Ala. 2007). extraordinary 866 matters c l a i m , s u c h as i s s u e s o f d u t y o r c a u s a t i o n , [we l e a v e ] t o Likewise, to to upon to Corp., 974 S o . 2 d i s a drastic compel a showing a and summary of a clear to the immunity sought. Hudson, So. 2d a t 1117. II. We M&N's first consider Discussion the issues and arguments related to standing. A. Standing "'To be a [ p e r s o n w i t h s t a n d i n g ] , t h e p e r s o n must have a r e a l , t a n g i b l e l e g a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e l a w s u i t . ' Doremus v . B u s i n e s s C o u n c i l o f A l a b a m a W o r k e r s ' Comp. S e l f - I n s u r e r s F u n d , 68 6 So. 2d 252, 253 ( A l a . 1996). Specifically, ' [ s ] t a n d i n g ... t u r n s o n " w h e t h e r t h e p a r t y h a s b e e n injured i n f a c t and whether t h e i n j u r y i s to a legally protected right."' P r o p e r t y a t 2018 R a i n b o w 12 1080981, 1081027 Drive, 740 S o . 2 d [1025,] 1027 [ ( A l a . 1999)] ( q u o t i n g R o m e r v . B o a r d o f C o u n t y Comm'rs o f t h e County of Pueblo, 956 P . 2 d 5 6 6 , 5 8 1 ( C o l o . 1998 ) (Kourlis, J . , dissenting))." Ex parte (Ala. 2005) The and Chemical events (emphasis standing focus Waste Mgmt., I n c . , 929 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 7 , 1 0 1 0 omitted). arguments on two d i s t i n c t that occurred before o f t h e Town a n d S i m p s o n phases of this and events that these arguments i s the proposition occurred 1. P r e - S a l e sale theory occurred events annexation Central to the sale of the o f t h e agreement, t o sue. o f M&N's either o f which case before i s that or after i t complains of the subject property and [ ( 3 ) ] t h e moratorium business the sale. that into licenses thereafter." no. 1081027). M&N a l l e g e s t h a t and t h e Town c o s t 13 The p r e - (1) t h e "initial [ t h e Town] i n A p r i l on t h e i s s u a n c e M&N's b r i e f , i tthe opportunity ofthe l i c e n s e t o M&N i n A p r i l placed these a taking the sale. are 2004, [ ( 2 ) ] t h e d e n i a l o f t h e b u s i n e s s 2004, namely, Events central property after i nconjunction with theexecution d i v e s t e d M&N o f s t a n d i n g A dispute, thesale of the property t o Vulcan Lands property, identify a t 16 n.2 activities to sell of (case o f Simpson the property at 1080981, the 1081027 original injury price i n fact The Town b y w h i c h M&N "no lost. any o f M&N's r i g h t s conveyance We "Inverse public McClendon " taking "The result resulting i n the the general warranty t o V u l c a n Lands to a t 13 the (case alleged contained condemned no. 1081027). w e r e no r e s e r v a t i o n s deed The i n t h e deed t o t h e p r o p e r t y w e r e c o n v e y e d a n d ... that M&N h a s no s t a n d i n g t o Town's condemnation at 13 (case i s the taking formal of p r i v a t e no. condemnation property p r o c e e d i n g s and compensation b e i n g p a i d by a governmental which v. petition, disagree. City has the right of Boaz, "[T]he cause of a c t i o n the rights i t i s clear use w i t h o u t just entity thus cause of a c t i o n f o r a c t i o n s which o c c u r r e d p r i o r t o 1081027). or of ... T h e r e f o r e , without that the property Town's p e t i t i o n , bring this for notes t h e n a r g u e s : "As t h e r e ... , a l l the correctly conveyed property." million, necessary f o r standing. reservation Town o f $3.75 So. 2d of condemnation." ( A l a . 1981). [ f o r i n v e r s e condemnation] a c c r u e s when Id. law i s w e l l - s e t t l e d o f [a] t a k i n g power 2 1 , 24 i s complete." 395 or agency that ' a n y damage suffered as a ... w o u l d h a v e b e e n s u f f e r e d b y t h e o w n e r 14 1080981, at 1081027 the time t h e damage became damage c l a i m b a s e d o n i n v e r s e ascertainable[.] condemnation subsequent grantees of the land.'" Springs Crede v. N i x o n , v. C i t y 250 S.W.3d o f Oak G r o v e , App.1998)(emphasis Cincinnati, ("The of general land rule also to land (facts 8 0 0 , 803 of (1944) Juris Secundum, Eminent title. on t h e p a r t 30 settled" Corpus Jurisprudence, or injury Juris Indeed, Alabama since 1927. after h i s Secundum, Eminent has regarded t h i s Alabama Great Southern 2 1 5 A l a . 5 3 3 , 5 3 5 , 112 S o . 1 3 1 , 132 analogous to inverse condemnation). 15 8 64 , of the subsequent grantee o n a new t a k i n g Domain, p. 102, § 3 9 0 . " ) . v. Brown, City 2 0 2 ; 30 C o r p u s i s dependent R.R. v. Eminent 231. Any r i g h t as " w e l l Steinle Secundum, Section rule (Mo. C t . Juris p . 1 0 1 , § 3 8 9 . S e e 18 A m e r i c a n of 5 2 9 , 534 29 C o r p u s Domain, acquisition (quoting and does n o t o r d i n a r i l y p a s s p. damages (Mo. 2 0 0 8 ) t o damages f o r t h e t a k i n g Domain, to of Blue i s i n t h e o n e who owns t h e l a n d occurs, grantee. 1115, § ex r e l . C i t y S.W.2d i sthat the right or for injury a subsequent 97 9 [does] n o t pass t o S t . 5 5 0 , 5 5 5 , 53 N . E . 2 d when t h e t a k i n g o r i n j u r y to 3 6 5 , 370 See added)). 142 O h i o State ... [ T ] h e (1927) 1080981, If -- there and for 1081027 we was a taking express inverse no in April view e i t h e r way condemnation accrued conveyance of the p r o p e r t y of the right of the pre-sale M&N has events Post-Sale The denial to 18, 2005, and (2) use that royalty action seek cause M&N at that of complains. action time. The divest f o r c o m p e n s a t i o n on redress events a business same agreement, the alleges the M&N basis Consequently, for the allegedly and the wrongful Town. Events post-sale redress M&N i n N o v e m b e r 2004 d i d n o t i n v o l v i n g Simpson of seek an 2 0 0 4 as -- to e v e n t s o f w h i c h M&N standing pre-sale 2. to b r i n g o r May the which payments w h i c h M&N license zoning night. for of to complains Vulcan of the Materials property According to post-sale events these purported from to the give sale M&N, M&N of are for the stone the on the January agricultural i t has on (1) standing basis right removed to to of the receive from the property. Simpson purports has the t o g i v e M&N the p r o p e r t y . one and no Town do a contract T h e y c i t e no standing not to dispute right that the i n the m i n e r a l agreement estate a u t h o r i t y f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n assert 16 its own contractual of that right. 1080981, 1081027 Instead, they Lands vested Vulcan M&N contend title t h a t the to Materials. the Thus, basis of Materials, point out the itself, that, property interest agreement, had no although such the from M&N i n Vulcan according to c o u l d h a v e a c q u i r e d no the conveyance to Vulcan Lands Simpson and -- the not Town, i n the mineral e s t a t e because, interest. they say, They a l s o on Vulcan correctly agreement contemplates a "lease arrangement [between Vulcan M a t e r i a l s and] Vulcan [ L a n d s ] t h a t [would] allow Operations o f any on such Vulcan the [Materials] P r o p e r t y , " the to conduct Quarrying r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no evidence arrangement. What S i m p s o n and t h e Town o v e r l o o k , h o w e v e r , i s t h a t agreement o b l i g a t e s V u l c a n M a t e r i a l s t o pay a "minimum payment" of any $50,000, rock. obligation The i s "an relevant event o r "any Materials relationship Materials and exists between the exception z o n i n g or l a n d use to receive royalty independent Vulcan the p r o p e r t y . to of entities, or Consequently, M&N 17 that mines c o n s t i t u t i n g O p e r a t i o n o f Law," o t h e r w o r d s , M&N's r i g h t Vulcan royalty i t actually only includes a "taking" In r e g a r d l e s s of whether the payment which restrictions." payments the technical between has from Vulcan adequately 1080981, 1081027 a l l e g e d a n " i n j u r [ y ] i n f a c t ... t o a l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d for standing which p u r p o s e s on t h e b a s i s of the post-sale events of i t complains. S i m p s o n a n d t h e Town a l s o c o n t e n d t h a t M&N l a c k s as to the post-sale the agreement [Materials pursuant t o which s h o u l d ] have t h e s o l e right t o M&N's " c l a i m , that [might] More specifically, Materials may the be made" sole property. Vulcan Materials." argument M&N the i s the real party argues: to assert a taking. to Vulcan governmental on the subject not to challenge the rock any a t 15. issue and t h e with rights We the q u a r r y and of Vulcan disagree. the issue This whether i n interest. the standing making ceded challenge ... r e s p e c t i n g the standing party "M&N has e l e c t e d to of such operations The Town's p e t i t i o n , confuses Although standing Vulcan ( i f any) i n any award as t h e r e s u l t quarrying Materials that r i g h t and o b l i g a t i o n t o seek authority made b y t h e Town claim "agree[d] Taking [ o fthe property]" t h e Town prohibiting cannot M&N i n t e r e s t or r i g h t decisions decisions standing e v e n t s on t h e b a s e s o f t h o s e p r o v i s i o n s o f compensation caused by [any] M&N right" a claim requirement has, i n fact, 18 serves to ensure suffered that an " ' " i n j u r y 1080981, ... 1081027 to a legally protected Rainbow Drive, 740 right,"'" So. 2d State v. P r o p e r t y 1 0 2 5 , 1027 (Ala. a t 2018 1999) (quoting Romer v . B o a r d o f C o u n t y Comm'rs o f t h e C o u n t y o f P u e b l o , P.2d 5 6 6 , 581 party i n interest who p o s s e s s e s Wright, and Arthur (hereinafter ("Every the 1542, Federal action shall title the person & Mary at Practice Federal (1990) (emphasis 327 See A l a . be p r o s e c u t e d R. Practice added) of the real l a w an a s s i g n m e n t passes so t h a t he i s t h e owner o f a n y c l a i m Rule be t r e a t e d as t h e r e a l 17(a)[, Fed.R.Civ.P.]." party Federal § 1545, a t 346. distinctions between the standing principle real-party-in-interest principle arep a r t i c u l a r l y for standing procedural subject-matter not Alan C i v . P. 1 7 ( a ) i n t h e name "Under p r e s e n t from t h e chose and should under Charles Kay Kane, Practice). to the assignee interest The "the real s o u g h t t o be e n f o r c e d . " R. M i l l e r , § omitted)), i s a means t o i d e n t i f y principle i ninterest."). arising in 1998 ) ( e m p h a s i s the right Procedure party (Colo. 95 6 waivable, prosecuted reasons. While jurisdiction "objections i n t h e name upon of the real 19 to standing an a c t i o n ' s party significant i s a necessity f o r and o b j e c t i o n s based and t h e not i n interest are being c a n be 1080981, 1081027 waived." Ex p a r t e 819 (Ala. 2002). and address jurisdiction Sterilite Although the absence (Ala. 2008), the action i s being interest. In this this Court of standing i s duty-bound to n o t i c e and hence subject-matter ex mero motu, C a d l e Co. v . S h a b a n i , 4 So. 3d 4 6 0 , 462 in C o r p . o f A l a b a m a , 837 S o . 2 d 8 1 5 , i t i s n o t s o b o u n d when t h e i s s u e i s w h e t h e r prosecuted See Ex p a r t e case, i n t h e name o f t h e r e a l Sterilite, party 837 S o . 2 d a t 8 1 9 . t h e a r g u m e n t m i g h t h a v e b e e n made t h a t M&N i s not the r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t because of the p r o v i s i o n s i n the agreement p u r p o r t i n g right to " l i t i g a t e , oppose constituting Operation made i n t h i s to assign to Vulcan or otherwise o f Law." M a t e r i a l s M&N's challenge an event H o w e v e r , no a r g u m e n t h a s b e e n c a s e r e g a r d i n g who i s t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . "The b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t to t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t r e s t s w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n e r . [Ex parte] C i n c i n n a t i Insurance [Cos.], 806 So. 2 d [376,] 379 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ] . I t i s not this Court's f u n c t i o n t o do i n d e p e n d e n t r e s e a r c h t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a p e t i t i o n e r f o r a w r i t o f mandamus h a s established a clear legal right." Ex parte 972 basis Metropolitan (Ala. 2007) Prop. (emphasis f o r mandamus relief & C a s . I n s . C o . , 974 S o . 2 d 9 6 7 , added). Arguments are waived. 20 n o t made Ex p a r t e as a Navistar, 1080981, 1081027 Inc., [Ms. 1 0 7 1 4 5 7 , F e b r u a r y (Ala. 2009). M&N has a l l e g e d standing. the a post-sale principle of real i t . consider t h e argument interest as a b a s i s confined various So. 3d injury , See Ex party parte that i t s arguments issues in sufficient to regarding interest, Sterilite, plaintiff f o r mandamus relief he t o o k t o o p p o s e h i s c o n d u c t as a p r i v a t e c i t i z e n Motor o f mayor. i n Eastern Freight, Railroad I n c . , 365 U.S. Mine Workers v. P e n n i n g t o n , Pennington contend doctrine"). that they We party i n now t u r n to absolute the rock insists, Noerr (declining to to the Immunity to the o f f i c e set forth to when t h e p e t i t i o n e r to standing). election rule supra invoked decline i s not a r e a l S i m p s o n c o n t e n d s t h a t he i s e n t i t l e d a l l actions we create immunity. B. for n.1 Moreover, because t h e p e t i t i o n e r s have n o t consider had 6, 2 0 0 9 ] 381 U.S. This quarry i s protected Presidents (1961), 657 (1965) to absolute and he by t h e Conference 127 v. United ("the N o e r r a n d t h e Town immunity p o s t - e l e c t i o n e v e n t s on t h e b a s i s o f l e g i s l a t i v e 21 before h i s i s so, because, A d d i t i o n a l l y , Simpson are e n t i t l e d immunity for immunity. a l l We 1080981, first 1081027 address Simpson's c l a i m o f immunity for his pre-election conduct. 1. Immunity Under the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine "The N o e r r - P e n n i n g t o n d o c t r i n e d e r i v e s f r o m t h e F i r s t Amendment's g u a r a n t e e o f ' t h e r i g h t o f t h e p e o p l e ... t o p e t i t i o n t h e G o v e r n m e n t f o r a r e d r e s s of g r i e v a n c e s . ' U.S. C o n s t . amend. I . Under t h e N o e r r - P e n n i n g t o n d o c t r i n e , t h o s e who p e t i t i o n a n y department of t h e government f o r redress are g e n e r a l l y immune f r o m s t a t u t o r y l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e i r p e t i t i o n i n g conduct. Empress LLC v. C i t y & County o f S . F . , 419 F . 3 d 1 0 5 2 , 1 0 5 6 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c i t i n g M a n i s t e e Town C t r . v . C i t y o f G l e n d a l e , 227 F . 3 d 1090, 1092 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . "The Noerr-Pennington doctrine arose i n the antitrust context and initially reflected the Supreme C o u r t ' s e f f o r t t o r e c o n c i l e t h e Sherman A c t with the F i r s t Amendment Petition Clause. In Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr M o t o r F r e i g h t , I n c . , 365 U.S. 1 2 7 , 81 S. C t . 5 2 3 , 5 L. E d . 2 d 464 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , t r u c k i n g c o m p a n i e s b r o u g h t s u i t a g a i n s t r a i l r o a d companies a l l e g i n g t h a t e f f o r t s by the railroads to influence legislation regulating t r u c k i n g v i o l a t e d t h e S h e r m a n A c t . I d . a t 1 2 9 , 81 S. C t . 5 2 3 . The C o u r t h e l d t h a t ' t h e S h e r m a n A c t d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t ... p e r s o n s f r o m a s s o c i a t i n g ... i n an a t t e m p t t o p e r s u a d e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e o r t h e executive to take p a r t i c u l a r action with respect to a law t h a t would produce a r e s t r a i n t or a monopoly.' Id. a t 1 3 6 - 3 7 , 81 S. C t . 5 2 3 . In reaching t h i s conclusion, the Court observed that construing the Sherman A c t t o r e a c h s u c h conduct 'would raise important c o n s t i t u t i o n a l questions' respecting the r i g h t o f p e t i t i o n , s t a t i n g 'we c a n n o t ... l i g h t l y i m p u t e t o C o n g r e s s a n i n t e n t t o i n v a d e ... f r e e d o m s ' p r o t e c t e d by t h e B i l l o f R i g h t s . I d . a t 1 3 8 , 81 S. Ct. 523. 22 1080981, 1081027 " U n i t e d M i n e W o r k e r s v . P e n n i n g t o n , 381 U.S. 657 , 85 S. C t . 1585, 14 L. E d . 2d 626 (1 9 6 5 ) , extended t h i s a n t i t r u s t immunity to those engaging in lobbying activities directed toward e x e c u t i v e b r a n c h o f f i c i a l s , r e g a r d l e s s o f any a n t i c o m p e t i t i v e intent or purpose. Subsequently, in California M o t o r T r a n s p o r t Co. v . T r u c k i n g U n l i m i t e d , 404 U.S. 508 , 92 S. C t . 60 9, 30 L. E d . 2 d 642 (1 9 7 2 ) , t h e Court, recognizing that 'the right to petition extends to a l l departments of the government' and t h a t ' [ t ] h e r i g h t o f a c c e s s t o t h e c o u r t s i s ... b u t one aspect of the right of p e t i t i o n , ' extended Noerr-Pennington immunity to the use of 'the c h a n n e l s and p r o c e d u r e s o f s t a t e and f e d e r a l ... courts to advocate [groups'] c a u s e s and p o i n t s o f view r e s p e c t i n g r e s o l u t i o n of t h e i r b u s i n e s s and economic interests vis-a-vis their competitors.' I d . a t 5 1 0 - 1 1 , 92 S. C t . 609 ( e m p h a s i s added). "Recognizing the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l f o u n d a t i o n of t h e d o c t r i n e , t h e Supreme C o u r t has a p p l i e d N o e r r Pennington p r i n c i p l e s o u t s i d e the a n t i t r u s t field. [ S e e BE & K C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. v . N L R B , 536 U.S. 516 (2002); B i l l Johnson's R e s t a u r a n t s , I n c . v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, ( 1 9 8 3 ) ] . " Sosa v. DIRECTV, Additionally, variety doctrine of Nat'l F. lower 437 to A preclude with a (D. have number Minn. 929-30 applied of 702 (9th C i r . the courts common-law L t d . v. H o l l o b o w , 514 923, business B a n k o f Omaha v . Supp. F.3d courts contexts. interference America, Inc. relationship. F.2d Marquette 1979), 643 Nat'l aff'd, 23 doctrine have claims 2006). in applied of See a the tortious Havoco (7th C i r . 1983); of First Bank M i n n e a p o l i s , 4 8 2 636 F.2d 195 (8th C i r . 1080981, 1980); (E.D. 1081027 Pennwalt Corp. I n c . , 472 Mich. 1 97 9 ) ; S i e r r a C l u b v . B u t z , 349 F. Grand Cmtys., L t d . v. S t e p n e r , 170 (Ky. C t . App. 323, 332 such as Adver., 2004); (Utah Also, the doctrine this one. 626 Dev. been City 365, F.2d doctrine Co. Supp. S u p p . 934 413 (N.D. S.W.3d 4 1 1 , v . T o b i a s , 116 416 P.3d applied of 380-82 607, Columbia v. disputes Omni Outdoor ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; Gorman T o w e r s , I n c . 615 provided i n zoning ( 8 t h C i r . 1980) immunity for (the Noerr- residents whose a l l e g e d l y " c o n s i s t e d o f [ o b t a i n i n g ] a z o n i n g amendment participating about has See I n c . , 499 U.S. Pennington conduct and A n d e r s o n F. 2005). v. B o g o s l a v s k y , [a] project); 809 Z e n i t h Labs., 1972); Cal. and v. proposed the spread housing to " d e l a y and ... [which obstruction advertisement conducting encouraging in a public local opposition to derogatory order formed paper, for the 24 block F. Supp. a large c i v i c for a zoning application" 803, group permit, defendants' ... bodies, purpose the by distributing the rumors to 467 effectuated official meetings in application was] before false C i v i c Ass'n, ( d e f e n d a n t s who o b s t r u c t [an] meetings of project" Weiss v. W i l l o w Tree (S.D.N.Y. 1979) attending in placing handbills, of were arousing entitled an and and to 1080981, 1081027 immunity under Ltd. Stepner, v. property the Noerr-Pennington d o c t r i n e ) ; 170 S.W.3d owner t o p e r s u a d e at 416 a municipality Cmtys., attempts ("any Grand [by t o annex property to prevent i t s r e z o n i n g f o r r e s i d e n t i a l were protected Anderson Dev. by T o b i a s , 116 P.3d concedes that ostensibly applies doctrine activities. activities The fall v. Noerr-Pennington essentially M&N Co. the only to significant within the at adjoining development] doctrine"); and 332. the Noerr-Pennington Simpson's issue a pre-election i s whether Simpson's "sham" e x c e p t i o n t o t h e doctrine. "The 'sham' exception to Noerr encompasses situations i n w h i c h p e r s o n s use the governmental p r o c e s s -- as o p p o s e d t o t h e o u t c o m e o f t h a t p r o c e s s -- a s an a n t i c o m p e t i t i v e w e a p o n . A c l a s s i c e x a m p l e i s the f i l i n g of f r i v o l o u s o b j e c t i o n s to the l i c e n s e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a c o m p e t i t o r , w i t h no e x p e c t a t i o n o f a c h i e v i n g d e n i a l of the l i c e n s e but s i m p l y i n order t o impose expense and d e l a y . " City of Columbia, 4 99 U.S. at 380. i n v o l v e s a d e f e n d a n t whose a c t i v i t i e s "A situation a r e 'not g e n u i n e l y aimed at p r o c u r i n g f a v o r a b l e government a c t i o n ' 'who 'sham' at a l l , ... " g e n u i n e l y seeks to achieve h i s governmental not one result, but d o e s so t h r o u g h i m p r o p e r m e a n s . . . . " ' " I d . ( q u o t i n g A l l i e d & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, 25 I n c . , 486 U.S. 492, 508 Tube n.10 1080981, (1 988 ) , Mfg., 1081027 quoting i n turn I n c . , 827 F.2d 458, the "Although activities S e s s i o n s Tank Noerr-Pennington directed 465 n.5 Liners, (9th C i r . I n c . v. 1987)). doctrine applies the scope a t any b r a n c h of government, to of t h e sham e x c e p t i o n d e p e n d s on t h e t y p e o f g o v e r n m e n t a l involved." 1060 Kottle v. N o r t h w e s t (9th C i r . 1998). exception is (emphasis added). conduct situation here ask whether Id. court extraordinarily consists This of cannot because, political a r e n a has judicial because a legislative was " t h e sham e x c e p t i o n lightly taken the a higher does." Court tolerance at body, in has T r a n s p . Co. v . T r u c k i n g U n l i m i t e d , 404 U.S. 1061 as in a to baseless.'" fraud on a legislative observed, lies California 508, the pointless for outright (citing sham challenged for intentional apply 1056, the i f the quite entity F.3d F.3d 'objectively to Supreme seem Id. (emphasis arena as be 146 so, effort 146 legislature, narrow." presented, " i twould context, the is lobbying the l o b b y i n g Moreover, Kidney Ctrs., " I f i t i s the Joor 512-13 the than Motor (1972) added)). Simpson was n o t a c o m p e t i t o r o f M&N. In f a c t , n e a r t h e p r o p o s e d q u a r r y a n d t h e r e a r e no a l l e g a t i o n s 26 he lived that h i s 1080981, 1081027 l o b b y i n g e f f o r t s were n o t g e n u i n e l y aimed a t b l o c k i n g t h e r o c k q u a r r y o r t h a t h i s a c t i o n s were those merely to injure "[Simpson's] government a rival. actions went f o r redress chaired the M&N's brief, at meetings 14 facilitated Hall He conduct property was into aimed a that activities of [M&N], [M&N] a n d o r V u l c a n Thus, as mayor, t h e y Simpson of defeating a t Town council collaborated with which limits, annexing imposing the a moratorium rezoning the subject property to prohibited ... w r o n g f u l l y these fall to the complaint, "wrongfully [Materials] to operate to the extent at a l l o f A c t No. 2 0 0 4 - 1 9 , wrongfully and He According at the c i t y licenses, classification designed, 1080981). often the b y t h e Town o f t h e p r o p e r t y f o r t h e on i s s u i n g b u s i n e s s election no. spoke purpose of d e f e a t i n g the quarry. Simpson's says: petitioning f o r the purpose i n the passage the annexation M&N o n t h e M&N p r o p e r t y i n opposition to the quarry. Representative subject simply (case formed proposal. contrary, designed orchestrating a well a quarry t h e CBG, a g r o u p rock-quarry the beyond into improper campaign t o stop costs." On of a competitor activities the refusing to a lawful permit quarry." predated Simpson's s q u a r e l y w i t h i n t h e scope o f t h e 27 1080981, 1081027 Noerr-Pennington sham e x c e p t i o n . legal his doctrine Simpson are outside the scope of the has, therefore, demonstrated a c l e a r , r i g h t t o a summary pre-election and judgment as t o t h e c l a i m s based on conduct. 2. L e g i s l a t i v e I m m u n i t y Simpson from liability immunity namely, and a n d t h e Town n e x t c o n t e n d t h a t by the doctrine of they are protected absolute legislative f o r t h e p o s t - e l e c t i o n e v e n t s o f w h i c h M&N (a) t h e z o n i n g (b) the denial of the property of complains, f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l use, Vulcan Materials' Simpson's business-license assertion application. At immunity the is misdemeanor in the Tennessee Town, assailed by c r i m i n a l charges not only but also proposition, provides, outset, M&N which to which disqualified strip cites i n pertinent M&N, Simpson of legislative proposes Simpson that pleaded him t o serve 1975, § guilty as mayor of h i s immunity. A l a . Code For 36-2-1, part: " ( a ) The f o l l o w i n g p e r s o n s s h a l l b e to and d i s q u a l i f i e d from h o l d i n g o f f i c e authority of t h i s state: 28 the ineligible under the of that which 1080981, 1081027 "(3) Those who shall have been convicted of treason, embezzlement of public funds, malfeasance in office, larceny, bribery or any other crime p u n i s h a b l e by i m p r i s o n m e n t i n t h e s t a t e o r federal p e n i t e n t i a r y and those who are i d i o t s or i n s a n e . " (Emphasis added.) M&N contends which Simpson pleaded guilty by A l a b a m a c a s e l a w and M&N, facto Simpson i s not stripped performed while Against § of 36-1-2, which the qualified any c r i m i n a l charges c o n s t i t u t e d " l a r c e n y " as s t a t u t o r y law. to in Therefore, hold immunity improperly these that he office, might have defined according and he to to ipso for had is acts office. a s s e r t i o n s , Simpson cites Ala. Code 1975, provides: "The o f f i c i a l a c t s o f a n y p e r s o n i n p o s s e s s i o n of a p u b l i c o f f i c e and e x e r c i s i n g the functions t h e r e o f s h a l l be v a l i d and b i n d i n g as o f f i c i a l a c t s in regard to a l l persons i n t e r e s t e d or a f f e c t e d thereby, whether such person i s l a w f u l l y e n t i t l e d to hold office or not and whether such person is l a w f u l l y q u a l i f i e d o r n o t , b u t s u c h p e r s o n s h a l l be l i a b l e t o a l l p e n a l t i e s imposed by law f o r u s u r p i n g or u n l a w f u l l y h o l d i n g o f f i c e or f o r e x e r c i s i n g the f u n c t i o n s t h e r e o f without l a w f u l r i g h t or without being q u a l i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to law." (Emphasis imposed by prescribed added.) law by Simpson argues for unlawfully Ala. Code 1975, 29 holding § that the office 36-2-2. only is a Simpson penalty $100 fine contends 1080981, that, 1081027 regardless of whether the c r i m i n a l charges amounted to l a r c e n y , h i s c o n v i c t i o n s f o r those s t r i p him o f any performed while We of i m m u n i t y he m i g h t o t h e r w i s e he agree w i t h the crimes f a c t o as and official office. See 912, (N.D. 916 facto (a) also recently as Zoning Applying contention. Simpson's c o n t e m p l a t e d by acts are Turley they him c h a r g e s do not have f o r the acts office. O h i o 2007) officer] The this underlying m a y o r de his is in against are Regardless § 36-1-2. United with a duly As the States, ("Defenses are to the nature c o n v i c t i o n s , Simpson clothed v. of such, both mantle 503 F. of he his Supp. as a v a i l a b l e t o appointed is a [a 2d de officer."). Ordinance the legislative-immunity doctrine, this said: "'[T]he tort liability rule for public officials and employees of Restatement ( S e c o n d ) o f T o r t s , § 895D, P u b l i c O f f i c e r s (1974), i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Alabama's case law development i n the area of " s u b s t a n t i v e immunity." That s e c t i o n of the Restatement provides: II III "'" (2) A p u b l i c o f f i c e r acting w i t h i n the g e n e r a l scope of h i s authority i s immune from tort l i a b i l i t y f o r an a c t o r omission 30 Court 1080981, 1081027 involving the exercise of a j u d i c i a l or legislative function."' " ( E m p h a s i s added.) This l e g i s l a t i v e immunity i s well established and u n i v e r s a l i n nearly every s t a t e . S e e , e . g . , B o g a n v . S c o t t - H a r r i s , 5 2 3 U.S. 44, 4 6 , 118 S. C t . 9 6 6 , 140 L. E d . 2 d 79 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ( ' I t is well established that federal, state, and regional legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from c i v i l l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e i r l e g i s l a t i v e activities.'). "Moreover, i t i s well settled that the c o n s i d e r a t i o n and enactment o f zoning ordinances i s a legislative function. See, e.g., Waters v. C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 282 A l a . 1 0 4 , 1 0 7 - 0 8 , 2 0 9 S o . 2 d 3 8 8 , 391 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ('A c i t y g o v e r n i n g b o d y i n c o n s i d e r i n g a zoning ordinance, as i n [ t h e ] case o f any o t h e r ordinance, acts i n a l e g i s l a t i v e c a p a c i t y . ' ) ; and C o r n v . C i t y o f L a u d e r d a l e L a k e s , 997 F . 2 d 1 3 6 9 , 1392 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1993) ('[A]ctions taken i n connection w i t h promulgating zoning ordinances and classifications, even the decision about which zoning classification should be applied to a s p e c i f i c parcel of land, are l e g i s l a t i v e actions f o r w h i c h l o c a l l e g i s l a t o r s a r e a b s o l u t e l y immune.')." P e e b l e s v. M o o r e s v i l l e Town C o u n c i l , 2007) added). (final emphasis 985 S o . 2 d 3 8 8 , 398 ( A l a . B e c a u s e t h e p a s s a g e o f O r d i n a n c e no. 2004-284 the designating property legislative function, participation passing that as an Simpson as a agricultural i s immunized voting ordinance. A member zone was from liability of different 31 a t h e Town analysis forhis council i n i s required, 1080981, 1081027 however, for the denial of Vulcan Materials' license application. (b) D e n i a l of the L i c e n s e Application " [ L e g i s l a t i v e ] immunity a p p l i e s only to a c t i o n s that are inherently legislative (policy-making) as opposed to a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ( p o l i c y - a p p l y i n g ) . Corn v . C i t y o f L a u d e r d a l e L a k e s , 997 F . 2 d 1369 (11th Cir. 1993). Thus, applications [emphasis in original] of general city policy to a specific party, even i f u n d e r t a k e n by c i t y officials who w o u l d be immune f r o m s u i t f o r t h e c r e a t i o n [ e m p h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l ] o f t h a t p o l i c y , are not p r o t e c t e d by l e g i s l a t i v e i m m u n i t y . ... I n t r o d u c i n g o r d i n a n c e s ... i s d i f f e r e n t from t a k i n g a c t i o n against particular businesses b a s e d on t h o s e r e g u l a t i o n s -- s u c h a s a h e a r i n g before the c i t y c o u n c i l c o n c e r n i n g whether to grant a particular ... license. The latter, like d e c i s i o n s t o deny b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s or t h e a p p r o v a l o f s p e c i f i c s i t e p l a n s , w o u l d be an a p p l i c a t i o n o f p o l i c y t o a s p e c i f i c p e r s o n a n d w o u l d n o t be s u b j e c t to absolute immunity." Grider Ala. v. 2009) "Acts of City (emphasis added zoning legislative." (11th voted not 628 Supp. enforcement rather 2d than Crymes v. DeKalb C o u n t y , t o deny was F. the 1336 (M.D. legislative added)(county "application immunity, of p o l i c y 32 rulemaking are 923 F . 2 d a p e r m i t f o r the development to 1322, e x c e p t where o t h e r w i s e i n d i c a t e d ) . C i r . 1991)(emphasis entitled permit of Auburn, 1482, 1485-86 commissioners of a l a n d f i l l because denial to a s p e c i f i c not of who were the party"); 1080981, 1081027 see a l s o F r o n t R o y a l of Front Royal, municipal 865 enforcement,'" Thus, they i n Corn of Lauderdale F.2d at c o u n c i l who warehouses more cannot City w h i c h was Lakes, the v o t e d not the on the the court, the denial of 1989) at Unlike this case, of immunity). 1369 a "zoning d i s p u t e between the City and a held that members developer," of the the developer's proposed to deny the so F.2d at the site plan, mini- developer's immunity f o r v o t i n g entitled 997 city property c o n s t r u c t i o n of also not 997 [real estate] to l e g i s l a t i v e were Lakes, 1392. for voting According like the to denial to to the of a application of a g e n e r a l p o l i c y to a s p e c i f i c p a r t y under s p e c i f i c F.2d ("when prospective, development p e r m i t i n Crymes, s u p r a , " i n v o l v e d the 997 Town step i n t o the area legislative only to rezone plan. Cir. v. F.2d court but Park Corp. adopt of Lauderdale the p r o p e r t y , but site (4th than claim developer's property 79 take the next Florida, p l a n were e n t i t l e d rezone deny 'do v. 1371, prohibit site 77, r u l e s and (11th C i r . 1993), to F.2d officials legislative-type 997 & Warren County Indus. facts." 1393. the enactment of zoning Ordinance which was a legislative 33 function, no. the 2004-284 i n denial of 1080981, 1081027 Vulcan Materials' business-license that ordinance that he Thus, was was i n the enforcement function. involved in that entitled to absolute directly although role an he is passage of Ordinance entitled f o r h i s r o l e i n the specific parties Simpson right and to immunity 1 a the such Town summary for as extent on an not judgment in denying his i s not so to Consequently, demonstrated the for ordinance that Materials. admits a basis clear, of legal legislative Vulcan Materials' application. s u m m a r y , M&N has Conclusion standing to sue. t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n s o f S i m p s o n and a l l e g e d l a c k of s t a n d i n g , Noerr-Pennington he of process. immunity 2004-284, on acts III. In no. Simpson enforcement a p p l i c a t i o n of Vulcan have Simpson's business-license a p p l i c a t i o n on t h e b a s i s doctrine they are affords the Simpson p r e - e l e c t i o n conduct opposing the Simpson is entitled absolute Town a r e denied. for his to Therefore, legislative the immunity quarry. immunity the grounded However, absolute rock to Also, for his A b s o l u t e l e g i s l a t i v e immunity i s the o n l y s p e c i e s of i m m u n i t y a s s e r t e d b y S i m p s o n a n d t h e Town r e g a r d i n g liability for the post-election events of which M&N complains. Therefore, i t i s t h e o n l y s p e c i e s o f i m m u n i t y we c o n s i d e r i n t h i s p a r t of our opinion. 1 34 1080981, 1081027 post-election no. 2004-284. p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the passage of zoning Ordinance As t o t h e s e immunity bases f o r the entry summary judgment, the p e t i t i o n s granted and w r i t s are o f Simpson a n d t h e Town a r e issued. Simpson i s n o t , however, e n t i t l e d t o l e g i s l a t i v e for his role business i n denying license. Town a s s e r t Vulcan To e x t e n t legislative Materials' for a t h e p e t i t i o n s o f Simpson and t h e M&N denial of Vulcan Materials' immunity application i m m u n i t y as t h e b a s i s a summary j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t are of a on i t s c l a i m f o rthe entry of a r i s i n g out of the license a p p l i c a t i o n , the p e t i t i o n s denied. 1 0 8 0 9 8 1 -- P E T I T I O N WRIT I S S U E D . GRANTED I N PART AND DENIED I N PART; 1 0 8 1 0 2 7 -- P E T I T I O N ISSUED. GRANTED I N PART AND DENIED I N PART; WRIT Cobb, C . J . , and Smith, Parker, 35 a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r .

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.