Ex parte Joe N. Dickson, individually and in his capacity as a member of the State Personnel Board; et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Alabama State Employees Association and PEBCO, Inc. v. Joe N. Dickson et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/26/10 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 R e p o r t e r 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 1090111 Ex p a r t e J o e N. D i c k s o n , i n d i v i d u a l l y and i n h i s c a p a c i t y as a member o f t h e S t a t e P e r s o n n e l B o a r d ; e t a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Alabama S t a t e Employees A s s o c i a t i o n and PEBCO, I n c . v. Joe N. D i c k s o n (Montgomery C i r c u i t WOODALL, C o u r t , CV-09-804 and CV-09-812) Justice. Members State eta l . ) of the State o f Alabama Personnel ("the B o a r d " ) , Board, an a g e n c y o f n a m e l y , J o e N. D i c k s o n , the John 1090111 M. McMillan, Joyce i n d i v i d u a l l y and P. O'Neal, in their official and Ellen G. c a p a c i t i e s ("the McNair, members"), s e e k a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e M o n t g o m e r y C i r c u i t to grant the their motion complaints ("the ASEA") members. of and We to dismiss the Alabama PEBCO, Inc., deny the count State in 1 V I I I and count Employees their and Sandra Alabama p a r t i c i p a t i n g actions against and I.R.C. H. Turner, employees of 2 0 0 7 , when the i n a "tax deferred annuity adopted pursuant § 457 Jefferson County themselves and Plan. Named referred Insurance to as 1 the Company (collectively ("the (case 457 t o A l a . Code Plan"), no. a purported as c l a s s of in filed and State a Nationwide (2) deferred PEBCO i s a s u b s i d i a r y o f the 2 State 36-26-14, in behalf of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the 457 were on action (1) Retirement the § of complaint that "class action") "Nationwide"); 1975, CV-07-04052) defendants and the Background compensation p r o g r a m [ ] f o r the s a l a r i e d employees of the of Alabama," of Association T h i s d i s p u t e e s s e n t i a l l y b e g a n on N o v e m b e r 2 0 , Gwin IX petition. I. Ruth Court Nationwide Life Solutions, Inc. A S E A ; and ASEA. (hereinafter (3) PEBCO. 1090111 According to the c l a s s - a c t i o n complaint, t h e ASEA contracted with N a t i o n w i d e t o be t h e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r 457 that i s , "to provide Plan, investment since of funds f o r the d a i l y f o r the [ 4 5 7 ] Plan." had f o rthe operation I t alleged a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2001 N a t i o n w i d e h a d been p a y i n g and that kickbacks i n t h e form o f u n a u t h o r i z e d c o m m i s s i o n s , expenses, and fees t o the A S E A a n d / o r PEBCO, the 457 P l a n sought t h u s b e n e f i t i n g them a t t h e expense o f and i t s p a r t i c i p a n t s . compensatory damages and p u n i t i v e " d i s g o r g e m e n t o f amounts p a i d , " fiduciary [457] duty, wantonness, declaratory sought and Plan plaintiffs enjoin injunctive moved Plan p a r t i c i p a n t s . " for a preliminary from Nationwide payments f o r the b e n e f i t D e c e m b e r 4, plaintiff in of contract. relief, 2008, i n the class intervention. and t o impose I t also "reformation action On D e c e m b e r 2, 2 0 0 8 , injunction a trust The B o a r d moved and f i l e d alleged 3 of independent seeking to on periodic any o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e 457 the Board as of breach of t h e A S E A a n d PEBCO f r o m r e c e i v i n g a n y f u r t h e r payments On b a s e d on t h e o r i e s and b r e a c h complaint damages, as w e l l d o c u m e n t s , " a n d t h e " a p p o i n t m e n t o f an f i d u c i a r y to protect the The c l a s s - a c t i o n to intervene a proposed that, such Plan. as a complaint i n compliance with 1090111 its statutory duties 457 P l a n as the as recommended t o what [457] Plan by t h e ASEA b u t t h a t i t was uncertain once a d o p t e d . " Consequently, the Board sought d e c l a r a t i o n o f [ i t s ] a u t h o r i t y " a s t o t h e 457 adopted. declaring i t had adopted the r i g h t s or o b l i g a t i o n s the Board had " i n r e g a r d s t o a "judicial as and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , that Specifically, the Board sought a judgment i t is entitled: " ( a ) To c o p i e s o f a l l d o c u m e n t s i n D e f e n d a n t s ' p o s s e s s i o n t h a t a r e r e l a t e d i n a n y way t o t h e [ 4 5 7 ] P l a n , as w e l l as a l l o t h e r c o n t r a c t s and e v i d e n c e s of d e a l i n g s and t r a n s a c t i o n s r e l a t e d t h e r e t o . " ( b ) To a j u d i c i a l d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t n e i t h e r t h e A S E A , N a t i o n w i d e , n o r a n y o t h e r p e r s o n o r e n t i t y who is a party t o any document entered into that r e l a t e [ s ] i n a n y way t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e [457] Plan can w i t h h o l d such documents from the Board under a guise of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y or otherwise. "(c) To an unimpeded i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the a l l e g a t i o n s o f w r o n g d o i n g i n o r d e r t o a s s e s s what a c t i o n t h e Board needs t o take i n c o n n e c t i o n with t h e [ 4 5 7 ] P l a n now o r i n t h e f u t u r e . " ( d ) To o b t a i n a j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e B o a r d has a p r o t e c t a b l e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n t h e [ 4 5 7 ] Plan and in a l l contracts, undertakings and transactions related thereto. " ( e ) To a j u d i c i a l d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t t h e B o a r d i s e n t i t l e d t o c o n d u c t a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n q u i r i e s and gather a l l documents/information that a f f e c t the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the [ 4 5 7 ] Plan. 4 Plan 1090111 " ( f ) To a j u d i c i a l d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t t h e B o a r d may t e r m i n a t e , r e f o r m , m o d i f y o r amend t h e c u r r e n t [457] Plan and/or contracts, understandings and arrangements entered into i n connection with i t s administration. " ( g ) To a j u d i c i a l d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t t h e B o a r d i s not r e q u i r e d under 36-26-14(a) to adopt or renew any p l a n recommended by ASEA u n l e s s t h e B o a r d has been p r o v i d e d sufficient d o c u m e n t a t i o n and other i n f o r m a t i o n to r e a s o n a b l y s a t i s f y the Board t h a t the P l a n recommended i s i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t of S t a t e P e r s o n n e l a n d , t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e B o a r d may d e c l i n e t o a d o p t or r e n e w a P l a n recommended by ASEA i f i t r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s d o i n g so i s i n t h e best i n t e r e s t of S t a t e p e r s o n n e l . " ( h ) To a j u d i c i a l d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t o n c e a P l a n has been recommended by ASEA and a d o p t e d by the Board, the Board can upon reasonable grounds t e r m i n a t e , m o d i f y o r l i m i t t h e r o l e o f ASEA o r o t h e r p a r t i e s i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the P l a n . Court The " ( i ) To such other relief the l a t e r deem t o be a p p r o p r i a t e . " Jefferson Circuit Court Board or granted the " p r o v i s i o n a l i n t e r v e n t i o n " s t a t u s to a f f o r d i t the to "stay On abreast April hearing 9, on the injunction. in the Court the 2009, current the an On April order s t a t e of Jefferson plaintiffs' A l l parties, hearing. entered of the for i n c l u d i n g the 28, denying 5 2009, the the Board opportunity litigation." Circuit motion the Court a held a preliminary Board, p a r t i c i p a t e d Jefferson motion, stating: Circuit "It is 1090111 clear that granting w o u l d be r u i n o u s that class The in various Plan has not [ y e t ] been day, the Board sections to the State the purporting adopted of which kind, the [ 4 5 7 ] Plan, whether Plan." included "personally i t sincome "Amendment Compensation The a m e n d m e n t , liable t h e amendment resulting and t o r e s t o r e t o such person. operate retroactively from held of i n a n y way t o regarding provided to each that such to the [ 4 5 7 ] Plan Finally, and agreements 2009 ( c a s e relating o r any a s s e t from or consideration t o make g o o d t o t h e [ 4 5 7 ] P l a n [ 4 5 7 ] Plan Subsequently, a n d PEBCO, the every i n a [ p r o h i b i t e d ] t r a n s a c t i o n " was t o b e accruing contracts compensation, Moreover, transaction, t h e ASEA d i r e c t or i n d i r e c t , "who e n g a g e d the an authority things, expressly prohibited "interested persons," any person of the f a c t to find of Alabama P u b l i c Employees Deferred definition [457] time determined." o f t h e 457 P l a n " r e c e i v [ i n g ] any payment, 21, at the present f o r P u b l i c E m p l o y e e s " ( " t h e amendment"). among o t h e r to relief to [the ASEA] e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t status next injunctive January challenged any breach any 1, 1997, predating i n the class or profits" t h e amendment p u r p o r t e d t h e A S E A a n d PEBCO f i l e d to the action. complaints n o . C V - 0 9 - 8 0 4 ) , a n d May 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 ( c a s e 6 losses on May n o . CV- 1090111 09-812), r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t Court the members complaint who voted alleged that t o adopt t h e amendment. by passing " i n j e c t [ e d ] themselves into issues the class matters which they claimed a u t h o r i t y " ; and had b r e a c h e d any action such i n an a t t e m p t proceeding." equal-protection as intentional relations and The 2 to to influence complaints declaratory of acts interference and i n j u n c t i v e "a p e r m a n e n t This PEBCO. 2 authority unsure f o r which their taking or negate alleged the court i n due-process injunction and f u r t h e r of [ t h e i r ] l e g a l , allegation ASEA and enjoining PEBCO sought They a l s o sought they the enforcement any and a l l further A S E A a n d P E B C O ] ... t h e contractual, 7 as w e l l More s p e c i f i c a l l y , ... e n j o i n i n g i s echoed and business/contractual damages. relief. over of with o f t h e [ m e m b e r s ] ... t o d e n y [ t h e exercise the subject of" v i o l a t i o n s and impairment o f c o n t r a c t conspiracy, t h e Amendment be t h e members t o " r e f r a i n from a duty c o m p e n s a t o r y damages and p u n i t i v e sought already a c t i o n ; had " a t t e m p t [ e d ] t o a s s e r t in The A S E A ' s t h e amendment had against and p r o p e r t y i n the complaint rights, filed by 1090111 and business added.) The 3 relationship first with Nationwide." amended c o m p l a i n t of the (Emphasis ASEA stated: "Since the i n i t i a l f i l i n g of t h i s Complaint, [the m e m b e r s ] h a v e c a n c e l l e d i n i t s e n t i r e t y t h e 457 P l a n with Nationwide and have e n g a g e d i n o t h e r c o n d u c t whereby t h e y have i n t e n t i o n a l l y ... deprived, or s o u g h t t o d e p r i v e and deny ASEA i t s r i g h t s u n d e r t h e Constitution of Alabama, and to intentionally interfere with ASEA's contracts, agreements, property rights and business relationship with Nationwide, and otherwise to injure and damage ASEA." (Emphasis added.) C a s e no. w e r e c o n s o l i d a t e d on hereinafter The asserting, discussing the those the seeking Circuit Court a writ to relief dismiss other the no. CV-09-812 The action"). Montgomery immunities. to immunity Without a l l claims members t h e n o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g the action, Montgomery C i r c u i t g r o u n d s as relief. dismiss on "Montgomery i s s u e s , the injunctive petition injunctive on the things, various immunity case 2009 ( t h e c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n i s to other motions seeking as moved among granted J u l y 6, r e f e r r e d to members CV-09-804 and claims the against Court except filed this Montgomery them for grounds. This request for relief is stated in the ASEA's complaint; i t does not differ substantively from the corresponding request for injunctive relief in PEBCO's complaint. 3 8 1090111 II. The d e n i a l of a motion of immunity'" of mandamus. 2009] ___ is Discussion i s properly Ex parte to dismiss reviewable Simpson, [Ms. i n the p e t i t i o n e r ___ So. 3 d a t ___ . "The b u r d e n right to the r e l i e f parte Metropolitan (Ala. 2007). sought injunctive relief, rely immunity, to official absolute actions of not only with types Legislative enacting immunity local them legislative Ex officers, i n conjunction i n both with Petition, damages b u t a l s o 9 immunity, capacity, are e n t i t l e d legislation." seeking seeking Immunity "Moreover," they say, " l e g i s l a t i v e actions as immunity. "[p]ublic c a p a c i t y and i n d i v i d u a l of immunity against and ( 3 ) S t a t e - a g e n t legislative bars legal the p e t i t i o n e r . " on t h r e e t o t h e members, (emphasis added). i s s u e t o compel to the immunity sought." namely, (1) a b s o l u t e A. A b s o l u t e their o f mandamus of e s t a b l i s h i n g a c l e a r rests 16, P r o p . & C a s . I n s . C o . , 974 S o . 2 d 9 6 7 , 972 The members According for a writ o n l y upon a s h o w i n g o f f o r the d i s m i s s a l of the claims State claim October "A w r i t on i m m u n i t y g r o u n d s a clear legal right (2) 1080981, and e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t t h a t w i l l a summary j u d g m e n t on a by a p e t i t i o n So. 3 d ___ , ___ ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) . a drastic grounds "'grounded bars at the 11 immunity actions 1090111 seeking declaratory Virginia U.S. v. Consumers Union 719, general 732 (1980)." statements the p o i n t of t h i s The Court or i n j u n c t i v e Supreme Court justice brought under considered of 102(A)(6)" promulgated (emphasis justice § States, 13. correct, of I n c . , 446 Although United these they miss at 721. (1980 ) , that was Court) from "the enforcement and suit Although Bar Code, Supreme the the V i r g i n i a Supreme l e g i s l a t i v e immunity (emphasis enjoy the same Virginia of attorneys to o p e r a t i o n o f DR 2- which Code had 446 U.S. S t a t e s Supreme Court f o r "the issuance of, or f a i l u r e rules," action sought Court. the United type and been a t 726 Court i t s chief t o amend, t h e of absolute, generally afforded state legislators, added), the i t s chief i n an the suit and of the "whether challenging In p a r t i c u l a r , the V i r g i n i a Supreme v. Consumers Union 71 9 1983 States r u l e s governing the conduct by t h e V i r g i n i a would, U.S. a t 734 U.S. U.S.C. added). challenged of V i r g i n i a immune enjoin acknowledged the [absolutely] 42 of by (Virginia 446 U.S. permanently at Virginia Court's d i s c i p l i n a r y " Petition, I n c . , 446 [were] of the United Court dispute. question States, Supreme of law are e s s e n t i a l l y i n Supreme C o u r t United relief. 446 i t n o t e d t h a t t h e y were p r o p e r l y 10 1090111 held "liable "proper defendants relief." because in their 446 the promulgation, at suit 736 sought o f DR C o u r t and i t s c h i e f enforcement in a U.S. suit enforcement capacities," for declaratory (emphasis to enjoin 2-102(A)(6); because justice powers"; and exercised because and added). the and 446 U.S. I n Ex p a r t e a t 736 Simpson, s u p r a , we injunctive was so, enforcement, not the the V i r g i n i a " i n h e r e n t and "enforcement (emphasis Supreme statutory officers added). recently and injunctive explained: " ' [ L e g i s l a t i v e ] immunity a p p l i e s only to actions that are i n h e r e n t l y legislative (policy-making) as opposed to administrative (policy-applying). 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 C i r . 1993). Thus, applications [emphasis in original] of g e n e r a l city policy to a specific party, even i f u n d e r t a k e n b y c i t y o f f i c i a l s who w o u l d be immune from suit for the creation [emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ] of t h a t p o l i c y , are n o t p r o t e c t e d b y l e g i s l a t i v e i m m u n i t y . ... " G r i d e r v . C i t y o f A u b u r n , 628 F. S u p p . 2 d 1322, 1 3 3 6 (M.D. A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d e x c e p t w h e r e otherwise indicated). 'Acts of z o n i n g enforcement r a t h e r than r u l e m a k i n g are not l e g i s l a t i v e . ' Crymes v . D e K a l b C o u n t y , 923 F . 2 d 1 4 8 2 , 1 4 8 5 - 8 6 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ( c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s who v o t e d to deny a p e r m i t f o r the development of a l a n d f i l l were not e n t i t l e d t o l e g i s l a t i v e immunity, because 11 were This a g e n c i e s " a r e amenable t o s u i t f o r " d e c l a r a t o r y and relief." thus 1090111 d e n i a l o f t h e p e r m i t was t h e ' a p p l i c a t i o n o f p o l i c y to a s p e c i f i c p a r t y ' ) ; see a l s o F r o n t R o y a l & Warren C o u n t y I n d u s . P a r k C o r p . v . Town o f F r o n t R o y a l , 8 65 F.2d 77, 79 ( 4 t h C i r . 1989) ('when m u n i c i p a l officials "do more than adopt prospective, l e g i s l a t i v e - t y p e r u l e s and t a k e t h e n e x t s t e p i n t o the area of enforcement,"' they cannot claim l e g i s l a t i v e immunity)." So. 3d a t . The c o m p l a i n t s i n t h e M o n t g o m e r y petition arises merely Amendment ... and t o deny legal, ... any seek to enjoin the "enforcement and a l l f u r t h e r [ t h e A S E A a n d PEBCO] contractual, a c t i o n out of which and property relationship with Nationwide." respondents' brief, a t 10 ... acts of the the exercise rights, (Emphasis duties A l a . Code of the Board, of the [members] of and added.) [their] business See also ("ASEA a n d PEBCO t h e r e f o r e s e e k i n j u n c t i o n p r o h i b i t i n g t h e Amendment's e n f o r c e m e n t " ) . 36-26-6(b), this 1975, w h i c h sets a u t h o r i z e s the forth Section the powers Board: " ( 3 ) To make i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , e i t h e r on p e t i t i o n of a c i t i z e n , taxpayer or i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y , or of its own motion, concerning the enforcement and e f f e c t o f t h i s a r t i c l e and t o r e q u i r e o b s e r v a n c e o f its provision i n t h e r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s made pursuant thereto; "(4) To conduct hearings and to render d e c i s i o n s , as p r o v i d e d i n S e c t i o n 3 6 - 2 6 - 2 7 , [ A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , ] on c h a r g e s p r e f e r r e d a g a i n s t p e r s o n s i n the c l a s s i f i e d s e r v i c e ; 12 an and 1090111 " ( 6 ) To c o n s i d e r a n d a c t on s u c h m a t t e r s a s may r e f e r r e d t o t h e b o a r d by t h e d i r e c t o r . " be (Emphasis added.) enforcement Indeed, authority According t h e r e i s no d i s p u t e of the Board. t o t h e A S E A a n d PEBCO, the b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s h i p PEBCO and s i m i l a r l y exercise regarding the the Board i n v o l v i n g N a t i o n w i d e , t h e ASEA, and t h r e a t e n s t o "deny ASEA of i t s l e g a l , contractual the benefit and and p r o p e r t y r i g h t s and b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e l a t e d t o t h e 457 P l a n . " brief, to a t 6. change involvement with Respondents' brief, the Thus, t h e i s s u e capacity i t 4 Respondents' Elsewhere, they contend that the Board "purports fundamentally present has c a n c e l e d and, 457 indeed, prohibit Plan, contrary to § 36-26-14." i s n o t -- a s t h e members attempt to a t 9. here -- w h e t h e r t h e B o a r d could ASEA's amend the 457 i n i t s purported Plan without fear legislative of legal r e p r i s a l b u t , i n s t e a d , w h e t h e r t h e members a r e immune i n t h e i r enforcement capacities. B e c a u s e t h e members' c h a l l e n g e d a c t s A c c o r d i n g t o t h e members, t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o a b s o l u t e l e g i s l a t i v e i m m u n i t y b e c a u s e , t h e y s a y , t h e y "were p e r f o r m i n g a legislative f u n c t i o n b y v o t i n g a s a B o a r d on t h e P l a n Amendment a n d w e r e f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r d u t i e s a s B o a r d members t o cast a vote." P e t i t i o n , a t 17. 4 13 1090111 involve only enforcement o f t h e amendment, i t i s u n n e c e s s a r y to a f f i r m a t i v e l y decide whether immunity t o e n a c t t h e amendment Moreover, Virginia, t h e y do s o o n l y a r e amenable relief." 446 U.S. members' a r g u m e n t s holding they ignore on have failed in beyond to carry that their arguments. their burden on t h i s of ground. they are entitled to provides n e v e r b e made a d e f e n d a n t It i s well settled, be m a i n t a i n e d a g a i n s t however, a state [ i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y ] , i fthe o f f i c i a l i s a c t i n g t h e scope Clair shall of law or equity." may the Immunity argue of Alabama "[i]njunctive action official St. members the State any c o u r t that immunity of i m m u n i t y u n d e r A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 , § 14, w h i c h "[t]hat that In f a c t , the consequences their B. S t a t e absolute added). a clear, legal right to relief the They i g n o r e "enforcement o f f i c e r s and (emphasis entirely Consequently, that legislative t o s u i t f o r " d e c l a r a t o r y and i n j u n c t i v e actions Next, on S u p r e m e C o u r t o f f o rthe proposition that a t 736 enforcement demonstrating rely legislative place. forinjunctive relief. of the opinion agencies" i n the f i r s t a l t h o u g h t h e members immunity bars a c t i o n s portion they had absolute of h i s a u t h o r i t y or a c t i n g C o u n t y v . Town o f R i v e r s i d e , 14 illegally " 272 A l a . 2 9 4 , 2 9 6 , 128 1090111 So. 2d 333, Harbert v. 334 (1961). Int'l, Inc., See a l s o Alabama Dep't of So. 2d 990 831, 839 (Ala. 2008); B o a r d o f E d u c . o f M o n t g o m e r y C o u n t y , 280 So. 2d 428, enjoin 432 State that of § 14 posture 14 the claim i s not does not this bar not acting ASEA and the Ala. prohibit beyond issue. 392 claims the and that the members asserted However, the "sole claim that identify i n that not contend them that in connection, remaining the "lawful p r e v a i l on However, they i t is the clear under the entitled are to claim added). capacity has C r a n m a n , 792 no i t does to capacities -¬ ASEA capacities." i n which 15 and [the do argue PEBCO i n s i s t members] complaint defendants are is capacities. Respondents' PEBCO's the they individual i s against Actually, -- for injunctive relief their the So. application in their official i n PEBCO's c o m p l a i n t against (emphasis Cranman officials official/representative 24 to Immunity contend Although State m e m b e r s do the 197 actions a claim for injunctive relief State-Agent (Ala. 2000). against Wallace 640, their PEBCO c a n S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y as e x p r e s s e d i n Ex p a r t e 2d 635, v. case. C. Finally, does from Whether this of (§ officials authority"). merits (1967) Transp. in that their brief, at does not sued. 1090111 In State any event, official meaningless. represent a suit for injunctive i n h i s or her i n d i v i d u a l This i s so, because the Consequently, State only t h e members in relief against a capacity would be State o f f i c i a l s their a c t f o r and official are not aided by capacities. Cranman ori t s progeny. III. Conclusion I n s u m m a r y , t h e members h a v e f a i l e d legal right Thus, t h e y have n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d writ t o immunity o f mandamus. PETITION Cobb, JJ., under any o f t h e i r The p e t i t i o n that they clear theories. are e n t i t l e d i s , therefore, Stuart, Bolin, concur. Smith, espoused a to a denied. DENIED. C . J . , and Lyons, Murdock, to establish J . , concurs J . , recuses i n the r e s u l t . herself. 16 P a r k e r , a n d Shaw,

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.