Latonya Myles v. Screentech, Inc., et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/01/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2101050 Latonya Myles v. Screentech, Inc., e t a l . Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-494) PITTMAN, Judge. Latonya Myles appeals the Houston C i r c u i t Court f r o m a summary judgment e n t e r e d by i nfavor o f Screentech, Inc., Terry 2101050 Collins, and Randall collectively In of as " t h e of imprisonment, Screentech February and Screentech November 2010, abuse Williams Myles process, answered 2011, summary 2011, malicious Myles's additional the complaint defendants Screentech to a h e a r i n g on summary j u d g m e n t as which to claims prosecution, false i n December and asserting asserted against defendants filed Inc. 2010. M y l e s f i l e d an amended c o m p l a i n t n a m i n g judgment, Following a lawsuit asserting and t h e t o r t of o u t r a g e a g a i n s t S c r e e n t e c h , W i l l i a m s as May referred defendants"). filed c l a i m s a g a i n s t them t h a t she had In (hereinafter In Collins the same Screentech. a motion for a Myles responded in opposition. t h a t motion, the t r i a l court entered to a l l claims i n f a v o r of the a Screentech defendants. The record r e v e a l s the screen-printing January nonprofit At by Collins to that time, Myles stated, o r g a n i z a t i o n c a l l e d " M i l k and p l a c e d an planned owned facts. 2009, M y l e s e n t e r e d i n t o a b u s i n e s s Screentech. and business following order sell at f o r 1,000 the t-shirts presidential 2 Screentech and Williams. relationship she Honey is a In with operated a Multicultural" t h a t the o r g a n i z a t i o n i n a u g u r a t i o n . The order 2101050 t o t a l e d $4,000. Upon p l a c i n g t h e would not be asked i f she 100 1,000 to could pay t-shirts all able place the a to sell f o r the contract post office box a The event n e x t day, paid that The the for physical the for t-shirts Two M y l e s p i c k e d up telephoned picked days 1,000 Screentech gave rather Screentech had agreed give f r e e , making her outstanding 3 to up than her also the 100 gone t-shirts realized t-shirts, for first ahead 300 tshe she that to that the 100 t- left t - s h i r t s ; Myles claimed she a tax- Myles the picking 300 that a federal S c r e e n t e c h had after into organization. up l e a v i n g 700 when needed Screentech Myles the up and she Screentech's organization. 300 order. receive provided Myles picked to her, she enter address week l a t e r , and time and but however, time; issued initially balance she p a r t i e s d i d not r e q u e s t e d ; however, shirts, owed, Myles went t o had the that a $300 d e p o s i t t-shirts. at balance before she complete had an number A p p r o x i m a t e l y one shirts of Myles stated that number, a t e l e p h o n e number, and identification provided entire a portion of b u s i n e s s and artwork the at t-shirts. written and pay order, had t-shirts, 300 balance at that point t-shirts $3,700. 2101050 On the other shirts as As hand, Screentech a second of A p r i l 1, and days overdue, the Myles 2009, t h e organization Screentech, at previously representative and, had after of the telephone provided. the organization, the in address provided organization to contact addresses to other any even t o a been Myles any responded was of certified delivered to the Myles. A l l communication sent to at that time informed i t that i t s account was default. Because its Screentech attempts had organization the by to account nor have confirmed the Myles Neither letter physical 1,000 outstanding and them, not was an number Screentech's attempts to contact that additional S c r e e n t e c h began a t t e m p t i n g organization had the order. b a l a n c e of $4,056 w i t h 90 treated been employee organization information to of produced organization, also the contact unsuccessful, perform see regarding representative search to to i f the an could organization organization named Collins Internet they information Milk 4 Myles and or, search than a regarding additional possibly, another Honey, the instructed retrieve other about and/or about Myles. a The nonprofit headquartered in 2101050 Florida. Believing organization as organization Thereafter, and was Screentech had information on and informed Myles behalf district t o be attorney advised Collins filed a of an a police the paid report that on April that information contact nonprofit to f i l e a 2009. At 22, of Screentech In told investigators t-shirts she "Milk had Screentech had i n doing 5 was received Myles w i t h the and, had organization. her claimed no searched had had ordered and a contact so, "Milk i t called she on t h e a copy of a l e t t e r Screentech f o r the which attempts to contact provided; status organization organization; that that did. questioning not District correct S c r e e n t e c h gave i n v e s t i g a t o r s i t s f i l e had there. attorney claimed Multicultural," contact County had w h i c h he that employed i t s c u s t o m e r , who report, Myles not locate district same contacted Houston the the to summary, i t i s u n d i s p u t e d had the Honey M u l t i c u l t u r a l " a c c o u n t and sent its M y l e s was be able Screentech that that been to Screentech contacted not o r g a n i z a t i o n . The and told Collins Office that time, organization Myles's, Attorney's police that Honey nonprofit response information for located on from she additional an entity 2101050 also named " M i l k and Screentech that t h a t t h e r e was at a Myles no later Honey" i n Pensacola, was date. An independent revealed approximately six that different S e c u r i t y numbers, and had theft of during was in on trial c o n v i c t i o n was again charged property that employed she with and On appeal, December regarding entering a defendants district Myles summary because, It is false well 10, used different summary j u d g m e n t de Social Williams with in trial. April attorney's case Myles. judgment in favor that an novo, u s i n g t o o k no 6 was part eventually court of the issues the tort erred in Screentech of material malicious of outrage. court reviews a same s t a n d a r d applied by appellate the Myles was trial genuine and That office. the imprisonment, testified 2010. Screentech The own. first-degree dealings his asserts, of 2009. that settled t-shirts Myles f a c t e x i s t r e g a r d i n g her c l a i m s of abuse of p r o c e s s , prosecution, and of two asserts she f o r the convicted thereafter set aside the entity; previously had aliases, informed g i v e n m u l t i p l e a d d r e s s e s as h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n or settled with that investigation indicted for first-degree theft. that by agreement w i t h M y l e s t o pay subsequently Myles not w h i c h had 2101050 the trial court. (Ala. C i v . App. must review established Neal 2011). the the that movant no Ray, Under Rule to genuine Inc., 68 794, of Bass 797-98 such v. that determine issue and of impartial existence of the f a c t Co. a p p l y t h e de in the present We To Bank the of Baldwin that judgment sought of F l o r i d a , we movant of law. thereafter the issue of material Cnty., evidence 538 is So. reasonably West v. 547 So.2d 870, 871 novo s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w t o each in infer proved." 2d evidence fair-minded persons can 196 existed, t o be the the Founders ( A l a . 1989). issue raised appeal. b e g i n by d i s c u s s i n g M y l e s ' s establish fact nonmovant "[S]ubstantial quality exercise We the t o adduce " s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e " t o r e b u t ( A l a . 1989). L i f e Assurance 194, C i v . P., whether of material showing, SouthTrust weight 3d 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. m o v a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e fact. So. t h e m o v a n t t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r makes bears the burden Sem evidence thereby e n t i t l i n g If v. a prima facie case c l a i m of abuse of p r o c e s s . of abuse process, the motivated the use o f p r o c e s s , t h a t t h e u s e o f p r o c e s s was w r o n g f u l , and t h a t the defendant Pillion, e v i d e n c e must show t h a t an u l t e r i o r p u r p o s e acted with malice. Moon v . 7 of 2 So. 3d 842, 2101050 846 (Ala. 2008). Myles presented i s sufficient contends to establish her abuse-of-process claim. First, was improperly motivated to its desire was i t s ulterior relies Civ. on App. to c o l l e c t 1999), the a prima evidence facie initiate In Myles's support of her I n c . v. Barnett, i n w h i c h we she c a s e as to she a r g u e s t h a t S c r e e n t e c h prosecution t h e d e b t owed t o i t , w h i c h , purpose. Shoney's, that 773 So. she claims, argument, 3d by 1015 Myles (Ala. explained: " A b u s e o f p r o c e s s has b e e n d e f i n e d as 'the m a l i c i o u s perversion of a regularly issued process to a c c o m p l i s h a purpose whereby a r e s u l t not l a w f u l l y or p r o p e r l y o b t a i n a b l e under i t i s s e c u r e d . ' Duncan v . K e n t , 370 S o . 2 d 2 8 8 , 290 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . As o u r s u p r e m e c o u r t h a s e x p l a i n e d , a d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t be l i a b l e f o r the t o r t of abuse o f p r o c e s s ' " [ i ] f the a c t i o n i s c o n f i n e d t o i t s r e g u l a r and legitimate f u n c t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o the cause of a c t i o n s t a t e d in the c o m p l a i n t . " ' Duncan, 370 So. 2d a t 290 (quoting 1 Am. J u r . 2d Abuse o f P r o c e s s , § 13 ( 1 9 6 2 ) ) . However, l i a b i l i t y a t t a c h e s ' " i f t h e s u i t i s b r o u g h t , n o t t o r e c o v e r on t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n stated i n the complaint, but for a collateral purpose."' I d . " Shoney's, In 773 So. particular, reference 1025. in i n Shoney's, debt-collection process 2d a t her used brief, Myles for illustrative points purposes, s c e n a r i o where a p o t e n t i a l l y v i a b l e c l a i m might arise, stating 8 that to a n y o n e who our to a abuse-ofinitiates 2101050 prosecution to S h o n e y ' s , we a creditor debtor's collect a debt s t a t e d t h a t i t w o u l d be to garnish exempt (thereby, wages in defendant without prosecutes reasonable an process. an use order p a y i n g h i s o r h e r b a l a n c e . We a abuses judicial coerce thereafter innocent grounds to the debtor plaintiff believe him for a abuse Shoney's, 773 So. Handbook o f the We wanted to collect element went t o the the about 2d an of a at debt, i t 1025 is (quoting o f T o r t s , § 121, r e j e c t Myles's purpose with Law of a debt the authorities from tort Myles of after abuse i t was c o n t a c t i n f o r m a t i o n she organization with a had that satisfied of the 1971)). Screentech to contact name 1 ulterior- p r o v i d e d . Upon similar grounds Screentech process. unable is Prosser, (4th ed. fact i t process.'" W i l l i a m L. a t 857 argument t h a t the of "'if crime guilty, to a into summarized t h a t him w i t h such payment for process) m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n ; i f he p r o s e c u t e s extort in abuse of p r o c e s s the to However, as Myles learning Myles's I n h e r b r i e f , M y l e s p r e s e n t e d h e r argument as f o l l o w s : "The Shoney's c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i f a defendant prosecutes someone ' w i t h s u c h g r o u n d s t o e x t o r t payment o f a d e b t i t i s a b u s e o f p r o c e s s . ' [ S h o n e y ' s , 773 So. 2d] a t 1 0 2 5 . " M y l e s h a s use o f the q u o t e d l a n g u a g e o u t o f c o n t e x t , and, t h u s , her a s s e r t i o n i s an i n c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f l a w . 1 9 2101050 organization way with being told to i t s debt, i t was Screentech, thus, of behavior Myles's would the collect believing that i t was initiated not with regard its committed Myles a part any its wanted i t from achieving a u t h o r i t i e s to behavior. The argues of to the Myles debt a that second utilize reasonably 2 Screentech's grand-jury because report situation without crime. to Myles's i n which Screentech chose to M y l e s had Additionally, prevent unlawful one to Screentech in raised s k e p t i c a l and went t o the p r e s e n t e d here i s not authorities affiliated l e g i t i m a t e l y concerned that that end; suspicions became not a u t h o r i t i e s . Although the unlawful that i t was Screentech suspected its that Myles, concerns collect and i t had statement proceedings been paid by A l t h o u g h she d o e s n o t a s s e r t t h i s a r g u m e n t i n h e r b r i e f , Myles avers i n her statement of f a c t s t h a t the Screentech defendants reported their suspicions regarding Myles even t h o u g h t h e y knew, a t t h a t t i m e , t h a t the o r g a n i z a t i o n in P e n s a c o l a was n o t t h e same o r g a n i z a t i o n M y l e s h a d c l a i m e d to represent. As evidence supporting that contention, Myles references two I n t e r n e t d a t a b a s e s e a r c h e s i d e n t i f y i n g " M i l k and Honey Multicultural" as a legitimate nonprofit o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h a t e v i d e n c e i n no way t r a n s l a t e s i n t o e v i d e n c e t h a t S c r e e n t e c h had r e c e i v e d c o n f i r m a t i o n t h a t " M i l k and Honey Multicultural" was legitimate, much less evidence that S c r e e n t e c h h a d no r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e i t was b e i n g d e c e i v e d b y M y l e s ; the c o n t a c t i n f o r m a t i o n i t had r e c e i v e d f r o m M y l e s had, at t h a t p o i n t , not a s s i s t e d Screentech i n c o n t a c t i n g Myles or t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t she p u r p o r t e d t o represent. 2 10 2101050 that point i s evidence a c r i m e had indicating n o t b e e n c o m m i t t e d . " The unconnected, even i n d i f f e r e n t , proceedings genuinely police fact against that was Screentech authorities done, but is Myles's Screentech had because i t had or was undisputed nonprofit with that entity, basis such the t o be that debt treated her Myles as whether i t was b e h a v i o r when the contends that i t customarily the does i t s the its traditional collection methods had precisely what argument ignores been given by that was Screentech the unsuccessful gave the fact undisputed that contact That fact, Myles prevented name was They did not Myles's affiliated reasonable have from resort the another as not a c t i v i t y may altogether with about Screentech defendants a illegal efforts information coupled learned similar that 11 have incorrect a Screentech. to i t s collection Screentech with claimed in Myles. informed t h e y w o u l d be to to to concerned that owed speak went ignored and not Moreover, organization organization does criminal Screentech been fact felt that either being that that Screentech fact "knew to the second round of demonstrates after That Screentech of p o t e n t i a l l y unlawful filed. customers failed. Myles suspicious report other that occurred collecting to legal 2101050 process after their traditional f a i l e d ( a s i s contended by M y l e s ) ; authorities collection of fraud, methods establish the argues that wrongful information use o f process Screentech with Myles t h a t , because contact a information that listed evidence t o by presenting evidence o f name on f o r the the as M y l e s ' s she had given was collection sufficient retrieved similar information traditional she p r e s e n t e d organization argues their they had been t h e ineffective. Myles rendering had r a t h e r , they approached the once t h e y became c o n c e r n e d t h a t victims processes Pensacola organization. Screentech different from Pensacola the correct contact organization, the S c r e e n t e c h d e f e n d a n t s knew t h a t t h e P e n s a c o l a o r g a n i z a t i o n w a s a separate authorities the entity; that she a s s e r t s they representations were that their concerned about representation to the propriety of M y l e s h a d made t o t h e m a b o u t h e r b u s i n e s s , i n p a r t , b e c a u s e t h e P e n s a c o l a o r g a n i z a t i o n h a d s a i d M y l e s was not a f f i l i a t e d with them, f r a u d u l e n t l y aided o b t a i n i n g a n i n d i c t m e n t . We r e j e c t contact information accurate, that Screentech was Myles t h i s argument. Although the g a v e S c r e e n t e c h may h a v e unsuccessful 12 t h e government i n i n contacting been Myles 2101050 through had those means. Even i fScreentech d i dnot b e l i e v e abandoned those had information i t had d i s c o u n t e d about Myles's real business contact that Internet had entity; have been search information that previously assertion that by retrieved provided from purported u n d e r t h e name o f a contacted the t o g i v e credence Myles Screentech by because to that t o c o n t a c t h e r . The as a result of the organization, S c r e e n t e c h t o become c o n c e r n e d defrauded, differed the organization. defrauded regarding the Pensacola caused dismiss Screentech provided had not enabled numbers, the Pensacola organzation with a t the time information the information been immediately o r g a n i z a t i o n , i t h a d no r e a s o n information fact businesses telephone operating without authorization Pensacola the to nonaffiliation Unfortunately, entities reason and Screentech and no locations Myles which that i t had the contact i n f o r m a t i o n Myles Screentech the Screentech does defendants not support fraudulently the aided the p r o s e c u t i o n o f M y l e s ' s . Because t h e r e c o r d does n o t r e v e a l evidence that Myles facie indicative of wrongful u s e o f p r o c e s s , we conclude d i d n o t p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e s u f f i c i e n t t o make a p r i m a showing o f the elements o f abuse o f p r o c e s s . 13 2101050 N e x t , M y l e s a r g u e s t h a t she presented evidence to e s t a b l i s h a claim of malicious make a prima necessary for indicating Favorite Civ. the of or 542 Sec. 133, (Ala. 139 Although 286, the asserts that had been Pensacola to cause to the & 286 2d or lead 719, entertain Co. 722 of (Ala. an App. v. honest 1989) Bowen, in in ordinary is guilty.'" (Ala. Civ. Casualty cause. of f a c t s a man is evidence probable i s such a s t a t e would i t term i s employed person arrested 284, Property So. "'as believe the 2d that substantial lacked 924 prosecution that So. party successfully prosecution, present Waldrop, prosecutor or Harris (quoting 447 So. 2d 1983)). the issue j u r y when m a t e r i a l at v. Probable prudence malicious opposing Store suspicion Harris, of claimant the the National a case for malicious caution v. that 2003). mind strong the Market App. actions facie p r o s e c u t i o n . To sufficient of probable f a c t s are material facts organization are not in heard H a r r i s , 542 dispute So. here. i t "recognized" unrelated to Myles c r i m i n a l c o m p l a i n t anyway. I n s u p p o r t o f t h a t 14 be by 2d Myles have reason to b e l i e v e t h a t i t Myles because was should in dispute, Screentech d i d not d e f r a u d e d by cause yet that filed statement, the a Myles 2101050 refers to the cross-examination of Collins d e p o s i t i o n , w h e r e he was retrieved the Pensacola not regarding testify during this Myles's statement According to the Myles case debt, but only not and was no reason Even i f , as the to tax-identification Screentech's knowledge from the argues, failure that "Milk organization as to and in only pay any the defrauded. Myles asserts 15 undisputed wanted a went debt. facts of collect to being a deceived i t s correspondence, Myles owed not to run not had i t does was not suspicious that could be Screentech. a search of provided, translate Multicultural" Pensacola; further organization; collect Myles does e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t S c r e e n t e c h was been to that did that so Honey of debt Screentech do the Screentech i t was believe number to the though responded to willing Myles reason that not did aware t h a t was Collins merit. that Screentech felt he i t wanted consider i t also Screentech located because to show t h a t the been to Myles's without fails b e c a u s e Myles had giving unrelated Myles, to that that i s , thus, a u t h o r i t i e s was Again, this was t h a t had organization. deposition Pensacola organization his listing asked about the during into different lessen the that had Screentech i t lacked 2101050 probable process the cause to fact time based collect that on on a i t s familiarity debt. S c r e e n t e c h had with Specifically, argument proceedings weakens was fails; the something Myles's argument fact that Screentech that debt the had fail. traditional Myles never Screentech of at done resorted a debt before to a result efforts. cause prosecution Under Myles's Because was Next, of not substantial presented, was we failure to respond evidence a prima not had Myles's facie A l a . Code 1975, § claim 6-5-170, personal liberty. another person false may imprisonment be A person guilty who of false u n l a w f u l d e t e n t i o n o f someone w h e r e i n of a i t s lack case failed l e d to collection of of why probable malicious established. address of to the collect S c r e e n t e c h a n d t h e r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s S c r e e n t e c h was as the Again, f o r the reasons collecting to criminal process to does not account process matter. initiating had civil points other delinquent accounts c r i m i n a l process simply because u s i n g c i v i l the Myles i t i n i t i a t e d the c r i m i n a l process i n t h i s Myles's using imprisonment. imprisonment that person reports of a crime u n l e s s t h a t p e r s o n has 16 false a cannot is i s deprived suspicion be the that liable a c t e d i n bad for faith, 2101050 without guilty "'reasonable Co., ( A l a . 1996) that Screentech complaint Myles substantial evidence So. 5 1 2 , 513 probable Myles, the accused Petroleum Corp. d i d not e s t a b l i s h lacked against that cause Myles indicating a prima to has that i s Williams, Standard (1929)). For the facie file case a Screentech criminal to failed f a i t h and w i t h o u t a reasonable b e l i e f t h a t Myles a v. ( q u o t i n g C a l d w e l l v. 220 A l a . 2 2 7 , 2 2 9 , 124 same r e a s o n s that to believe'" o f t h e c r i m e . Crown C e n t . 679 S o . 2 d 6 5 1 , 655 Oil cause produce a c t e d i n bad had committed crime. Finally, substantial outrage. that we address evidence beyond to support correct, a c t i o n s were a l lpossible atrocious American and Road assertion t o be For Myles Screentech's Myles's bounds utterly Serv. v. be held liable upon h i s l e g a l 679 So. 2d rights 1071, where of decency, the Inmon, he and t o be in a tort 394 So. ( A l a . C i v . App. 17 as t o go regarded as society." 2 d 3 6 1 , 365 ( A l a . i s demonstrated, has done of demonstrated civilized no more i n a p e r m i s s i b l e way." 1075 of she must have 1980). N e v e r t h e l e s s , i f p r o b a b l e cause cannot claim she p r e s e n t e d "so extreme i n degree intolerable Co. a that than McDuff v. 1996). "[o]ne As insist Turner, we have 2101050 discussed, the Screentech defendants had file a criminal complaint against Myles, done so cannot serve tort of cause to and, t h u s , i t s h a v i n g as a b a s i s t o h o l d them liable f o r the outrage. Because Myles e s t a b l i s h a prima did probable d i d not f a c i e case not e r r i n entering a Screentech present substantial evidence as t o h e r c l a i m s , t h e t r i a l summary judgment i n f a v o r to court of the defendants. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d B r y a n , Thomas, 18 and Moore, J J . , concur.

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.