Tanita Cain d/b/a Alabama First Friday, Inc. v. Theresa Strachan d/b/a By Any Means Entertainment and Celebrity 1st Friday et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

rel: 02/18/2011 Notice: T h i s 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 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 , Alabama 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 2091039 T a n i t a C a i n d/b/a Alabama F i r s t F r i d a y , Inc. v. Theresa Strachan d/b/a By Any Means Entertainment and Celebrity 1st Friday e t a l . Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-10-710) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Tanita Cain, doing business ("Cain"), 1 appeals as A l a b a m a F i r s t F r i d a y , I n c . f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f The p l e a d i n g s i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t a r e s t y l e d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f i s T a n i t a C a i n , d o i n g b u s i n e s s as Alabama 1 2091039 the defendants, Theresa Means E n t e r t a i n m e n t and and C e l e b r i t y J e m e l l e Cunningham as " t h e d e f e n d a n t s " ) . The March preliminary prevent 2010, advertisements from Cain injunction them f r o m holding doing business as By 1st F r i d a y , Frank (hereinafter c o l l e c t i v e l y Walker, referred to case indicates filed a against the f o l l o w i n g . On complaint a verified the defendants, u s i n g t h e name " C e l e b r i t y for seeking event scheduled for that to 1st Fridays" i n and p r o m o t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s and t o e n j o i n an Any 2 record i n this 5, Strachan, day. In them her F i r s t F r i d a y , I n c . However, t h e c o m p l a i n t and a document f r o m t h e A l a b a m a S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e ' s o f f i c e , w h i c h i s a t t a c h e d as an e x h i b i t t o t h e c o m p l a i n t , i n d i c a t e t h a t F i r s t F r i d a y , I n c . , i s a p r o p e r l y r e g i s t e r e d Alabama c o r p o r a t i o n . Moreover, t h e complaint i n d i c a t e s that Tanita Cain i s the p r e s i d e n t of F i r s t F r i d a y , I n c . The n o t i c e o f a p p e a l l i s t s o n l y T a n i t a C a i n as t h e a p p e l l a n t , b u t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f on a p p e a l has b e e n f i l e d on b e h a l f o f T a n i t a C a i n , d o i n g b u s i n e s s as A l a b a m a F i r s t Friday, Inc. The p l e a d i n g s i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t a r e s t y l e d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t F r a n k W a l k e r was b e i n g s u e d as " F r a n k W a l k e r , d/b/a Celebrity 1st Friday." The complaint asserts, "upon i n f o r m a t i o n and b e l i e f , " t h a t W a l k e r i s a p r i n c i p a l and f i n a n c i a l b a c k e r o f C e l e b r i t y 1 s t F r i d a y . J e m e l l e Cunningham was b e i n g s u e d i n h e r c a p a c i t y as S t r a c h a n ' s a t t o r n e y . We n o t e t h a t Cunningham d i d n o t r e p r e s e n t S t r a c h a n i n t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . Finally, Sheraton H o t e l Birmingham and the Birmingham J e f f e r s o n C i v i c C e n t e r were o r i g i n a l l y named as d e f e n d a n t s i n t h i s c a s e , b u t t h e y were d i s m i s s e d on May 14, 2010. 2 2 2091039 c o m p l a i n t , C a i n a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e Alabama S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e ' s office h a d g r a n t e d h e r t h e e x c l u s i v e r i g h t t o t h e t r a d e name "First F r i d a y s " f o r a t e n - y e a r p e r i o d and t h a t t h e r i g h t d i d n o t e x p i r e u n t i l J u l y 27, 2 0 1 5 . C a i n c o n t e n d e d t h a t b o t h s h e and the defendants separate under events were using local media to advertise t o be h e l d i n B i r m i n g h a m on M a r c h 5, 2010, t h e name o f " 1 s t F r i d a y s " a n d t h a t C a i n w o u l d damage i f t h e d e f e n d a n t s were a l l o w e d t o proceed suffer under t h e name " 1 s t F r i d a y s . " The trial c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g t h e d a y t h e c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d a n d t h e e v e n t s were s c h e d u l e d hearing, the preliminary order trial injunction denying court t o take place. denied Cain's request from t h e bench and e n t e r e d the request on M a r c h 9, 2010. After the for a a written In i t s w r i t t e n o r d e r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t C a i n h a d f a i l e d t o meet h e r b u r d e n , " w e i g h i n g t h e h a r d s h i p i m p o s e d on t h e d e f e n d a n t [ s ] a n d the existence o f a remedy however, schedule damages. Cain d i d not appeal for a at law." hearing The t r i a l to allow Cain court d i d , t o prove her from t h e d e n i a l o f h e r r e q u e s t a preliminary injunction. 3 2091039 Before the h e a r i n g on damages, t h e p a r t i e s h a d disputes r e g a r d i n g the d e f e n d a n t s ' propounded d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s , which concerned the continued filed a issue of damages. u n t i l u l t i m a t e l y , on J u n e 10, motion to dismiss summary j u d g m e n t , a r g u i n g was i n any trade way name. summary The On judgment June in 2010, the disputes defendants in the alternative, that Cain had not damaged by or, discovery the 18, alleged 2010, favor the of proven t h a t infringement trial the for court defendants. a she of her entered In 3 a the judgment, the t r i a l c o u r t agreed w i t h the d e f e n d a n t s t h a t C a i n had f a i l e d t o p r o v e damages, s t a t i n g t h a t " [ t ] h e r e w o u l d be way t o c a l c u l a t e damages i n t h i s c a s e w i t h o u t no r e l y i n g on p u r e speculation." A f t e r t h e summary j u d g m e n t was numerous p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s . a "Motion to S t r i k e Arguments." On Motion June 21, entered, On June 19, to Dismiss 2010, the and the p a r t i e s f i l e d 2010, Cain Summary defendants f i l e d filed Judgment both a I n her b r i e f to t h i s c o u r t , Cain a s s e r t s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g . However, i n t h e i r b r i e f , t h e d e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t a h e a r i n g was h e l d on June 17, 2010, and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s summary j u d g m e n t i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t was b a s e d upon a r g u m e n t s made a t t h e June 17, 2010, hearing. A t r a n s c r i p t of the h e a r i n g i s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . 3 4 2091039 response to Cain's motion to s t r i k e and a m o t i o n f o r an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s p u r s u a n t t o t h e A l a b a m a Accountability Code 1975. On Act July ("the 1, ALAA"), 2010, § 12-19-270 e t Cain f i l e d amend, o r v a c a t e t h e summary j u d g m e n t . trial seq., A l a . to alter, On J u l y 15, 2010, the c o u r t entered separate orders denying Cain's motion alter, day, a motion Litigation amend, o r v a c a t e and h e r m o t i o n the trial court also entered to s t r i k e . an order to That same awarding the d e f e n d a n t s a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount o f $ 2 , 5 0 0 , p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA. Cain timely appealed. Cain a s s e r t s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y e n t e r e d the summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s b e c a u s e , a genuine issue of m a t e r i a l fact she s a y s , existed. " T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f a summary j u d g m e n t i s de novo. W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co., 886 So. 2d 72, 74 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w as t h e t r i a l court applied. S p e c i f i c a l l y , we must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e movant has made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s and t h a t t h e movant i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . Rule 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a v. H o d u r s k i , 899 So. 2d 949, 952-53 ( A l a . 2004). I n m a k i n g s u c h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we must r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant. W i l s o n v. Brown, 496 So. 2d 756, 758 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . Once t h e movant makes a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , t h e b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o 5 2091039 p r o d u c e ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . B a s s v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; A l a . Code 1975, § 12-21-12. ' [ S ] u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s evidence of such weight and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can reasonably i n f e r the e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r . Co. o f F l a . , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " Dow v. Alabama (Ala. Party, 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 2004). In for Democratic her brief on appeal, Cain argues t h a t her complaint i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f r a i s e d t h e i s s u e o f what C a i n c a l l e d h e r " e x c l u s i v e r i g h t " t o use t h e t r a d e name " F i r s t F r i d a y s . " issue, she says, was "undisputed and incapable of That being f o r e c l o s e d upon d u r i n g argument t h e r e f o r e m a k i n g s a i d i s s u e a genuine issue." She s t a t e s t h a t the t r i a l recognized the therefore, t h a t e n t r y o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t was The trial factual issue raised c o u r t s h o u l d have court denied Cain's i n the request complaint and, improper. for a preliminary i n j u n c t i o n on t h e b a s i s t h a t she h a d f a i l e d t o meet h e r b u r d e n with regard to "weighing the hardship imposed d e f e n d a n t s ] and t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a remedy a t l a w . " on [the The order d e n y i n g t h e r e q u e s t f o r an i n j u n c t i o n c o n t a i n e d no f i n d i n g s the i s s u e of i n f r i n g e m e n t . A p p a r e n t l y , the t r i a l 6 court on found 2091039 that there was some merit to the contention that the d e f e n d a n t s h a d i n f r i n g e d C a i n ' s t r a d e name, h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e , without such a f i n d i n g , forward on the issue there w o u l d have b e e n no n e e d t o go o f t h e damage caused by the a l l e g e d infringement. The the discovery denial of requests the the defendants request c o n c e r n e d C a i n ' s damages. for a propounded preliminary after injunction The d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t was b a s e d upon t h e i r c o n t e n t i o n t h a t C a i n was u n a b l e to prove that infringement. favor she had been damaged by the alleged The t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s b a s e d upon C a i n ' s failure t o prove damages, s t a t i n g t h a t C a i n h a d p r o v i d e d t h e c o u r t w i t h "no way to c a l c u l a t e damages w i t h o u t Therefore, relying on p u r e s p e c u l a t i o n . " C a i n ' s argument t h a t h e r v e r i f i e d c o m p l a i n t r a i s e d a f a c t u a l i s s u e r e g a r d i n g whether the d e f e n d a n t s ' use o f t h e name " C e l e b r i t y 1 s t F r i d a y " c o n s t i t u t e d i n f r i n g e m e n t t r a d e name seems m i s p l a c e d . B o t h t h e d e f e n d a n t s and t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p e a r t o have moved b e y o n d t h a t q u e s t i o n t h e summary j u d g m e n t was of her entered. 7 a t the time 2091039 On a p p e a l , C a i n makes no a r g u m e n t r e g a r d i n g the issue of damages, a n d s h e f a i l s t o p o i n t o u t a n y e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d that w o u l d be r e l e v a n t to the issue o f damages. Her o n l y argument i s t h a t t h e v e r i f i e d c o m p l a i n t r a i s e d a genuine i s s u e of f a c t as t o w h e t h e r t h e r e trade name that the t r i a l h a d b e e n an i n f r i n g e m e n t court should have of her recognized. Accordingly, C a i n h a s f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e e r r o r on t h e p a r t of t h e t r i a l court. "The p a r t y o p p o s i n g a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t may n o t m e r e l y r e l y upon t h e a l l e g a t i o n s a n d d e n i a l s in pleadings i n order t o defeat Underwood v. A l l s t a t e a properly supported motion. I n s . Co., 590 So. 2d 258, 259 534 So. 2d 585, 588 ( A l a . (Ala. 1991); G a l l u p s v. C o t t e r , 1988)." Lewis v. M o b i l O i l C o r p . , 765 So. 2d 629, 630 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . Once t h e d e f e n d a n t s made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t was no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l damages, t h e b u r d e n s h i f t e d e v i d e n c e " t h a t s h e had, fact regarding t o Cain there the issue of t o produce " s u b s t a n t i a l i n f a c t , i n c u r r e d damages as a r e s u l t of t h e a l l e g e d i n f r i n g e m e n t . See Dow, 897 So. 2d a t 1038-39. However, o u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t C a i n d i d n o t produce any evidence, r e g a r d i n g h e r damages. l e t alone substantial evidence, We c o n c l u d e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e t r i a l 8 2091039 court properly entered a summary j u d g m e n t in favor of the defendants. Cain a l s o argues t h a t the the defendants attorney she says, her trial court erred i n awarding f e e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA, b e c a u s e , action against the d e f e n d a n t s was "substantial justification." Cain also points trial the defendants court's violated the order awarding ALAA by failing to 1975. out without that attorney specifically r e a s o n s f o r i t s a w a r d , as r e q u i r e d by not set the fees forth the § 12-19-273, A l a . Code The d e f e n d a n t s a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s order f a i l s t o c o m p l y w i t h § 12-19-273 and u r g e t h i s c o u r t t o remand this cause attorney f o r the trial court to enter an order awarding f e e s t h a t i s i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e ALAA. N e i t h e r p a r t y has r a i s e d t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h i s c o u r t jurisdiction to "'jurisdictional notice of S e x t o n v. consider matters are them a t any S e x t o n , 42 time So. 1995), this court Archer, held question. However, o f s u c h m a g n i t u d e t h a t we and 3d 1280, ( q u o t i n g Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 I n McDorman v. this So. 678 that, 9 do so 1282 So. for e v e n ex 2d a 712 112 trial take mero motu. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 711, has (Ala. 1987)). (Ala. Civ. court 2010) to App. have 2091039 j u r i s d i c t i o n t o p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r a m o t i o n s e e k i n g an a w a r d o f attorney before f e e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA, t h e m o t i o n must be there merits. h a s b e e n an a d j u d i c a t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n on t h e I n McDorman, t h i s Brothers, filed court, quoting I n c . , 601 So. 2d 110, 112 Baker v. W i l l i a m s ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , stated: "'The p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f § 1 2 - 1 9 - 2 7 [ 2 ] s t a t e s t h a t t h e c o u r t must make i t s a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s u n d e r t h e [ A L A A ] as p a r t o f i t s j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s o f the case, " i n a d d i t i o n " t o other costs assessed a g a i n s t a f r i v o l o u s l i t i g a n t . The s t a t u t e does n o t c r e a t e a new o r s e p a r a t e c a u s e o f a c t i o n t o be brought a f t e r a case i s l i t i g a t e d and g i v e n a f i n a l a d j u d i c a t i o n on i t s m e r i t s ; r a t h e r , i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e m o t i o n must be made d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e case.'" McDorman, 678 So. 2d a t 112; s e e a l s o H a l l v . A m e r i c a n Indem. G r o u p , 681 So. 2d 220, 221 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1996) ( m o t i o n f o r attorney f e e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e ALAA was f i l e d b e f o r e of a f i n a l judgment, thus t h e t r i a l award a t t o r n e y the entry court had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o fees). In t h i s case, t h e defendants f i l e d t h e motion f o r a t t o r n e y fees on entered after June 21, 2010--three t h e summary j u d g m e n t . the f i n a l adjudication days after Therefore, the t r i a l t h e m o t i o n was made on t h e m e r i t s , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a w a r d a t t o r n e y f e e s . 10 court Because t h e 2091039 trial court lacked fees, the order jurisdiction purportedly over awarding the issue the fees of attorney i s void. p a r t e C i t i z e n s Bank, 879 So. 2 d 535, 540 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . judgment w i l l not support an a p p e a l , must d i s m i s s an a t t e m p t e d a p p e a l Colburn v. C o l b u r n , Therefore, concerning court from such a v o i d judgment.'" 989 So. 2d 556, 559 ( A l a . C i v . App. we d i s m i s s t h a t p o r t i o n o f C a i n ' s a n d we i n s t r u c t t h e t r i a l 2010, o r d e r summary a n d 'an a p p e l l a t e appeal t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e award o f a t t o r n e y fees t o t h e defendants, 15, "A v o i d 14 So. 3 d 176, 179 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) ( q u o t i n g Vann v . Cook, 2008)). Ex awarding the defendants judgment e n t e r e d SUMMARY JUDGMENT Bryan, attorney i t s July fees. The on J u n e 18, 2010, i s a f f i r m e d . OF DISMISSED I N PART WITH Pittman, court t o vacate JUNE 18, 2010, AFFIRMED; INSTRUCTIONS. Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 11 APPEAL

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.