Charles Young, Jr. v. Southeast Alabama Medical Center

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/08/2013 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, 2012-2013 2111258 Charles Young, J r . v. Southeast Alabama M e d i c a l Center Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t Court (CV-03-437) THOMAS, J u d g e . In Medical 2003, Charles Center ("SAMC"), maintained i t s premises, s l i p p e d and f e l l Young, J r . , sued alleging that Southeast Alabama i t had n e g l i g e n t l y r e s u l t i n g i n i n j u r y t o Young when he on t h e p r e m i s e s . In A p r i l 2007, t h e t r i a l 2111258 c o u r t d e n i e d SAMC's m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . 19, 2011, t h e t r i a l d i s m i s s t h e case pursuant in 30 d a y s a p p e a r on t h e S t a t e summary b e t w e e n trial On February t o R u l e 4 1 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., significant Judicial January court entered January c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r s t a t i n g i t s i n t e n t to "unless On action f i l e d . " Information 19 a n d F e b r u a r y 1 System No filings case-action 24, 2011, when t h e an o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g Young's a c t i o n . 24, dismissed the a c t i o n , Rule 2 0 1 1 , t h e same filed a postjudgment court 41(b) r e a d s : 1 Young day t h e t r i a l motion "For f a i l u r e o f t h e p l a i n t i f f t o p r o s e c u t e o r t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e s e r u l e s o r any o r d e r o f c o u r t , a d e f e n d a n t may move f o r d i s m i s s a l o f an a c t i o n o r o f any c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t . U n l e s s t h e c o u r t i n its order f o r d i s m i s s a l otherwise specifies, a d i s m i s s a l u n d e r t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n a n d any d i s m i s s a l not provided f o r i n this rule, other than a d i s m i s s a l f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , f o r improper v e n u e , o r f o r f a i l u r e t o j o i n a p a r t y u n d e r [ A l a . R. C i v . P . , ] R u l e 19, o p e r a t e s as an a d j u d i c a t i o n upon the m e r i t s . " A l t h o u g h t h e t e x t o f Rule 41(b) i n d i c a t e s t h a t a d i s m i s s a l u n d e r t h e r u l e s h o u l d be i n s t i g a t e d b y a d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n , the r u l e has been c o n s t r u e d t o p e r m i t a t r i a l c o u r t t o d i s m i s s an a c t i o n s u a s p o n t e f o r l a c k o f p r o s e c u t i o n o r f o r f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w i t h c o u r t r u l e s o r o r d e r s b a s e d on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n h e r e n t power t o c o n t r o l i t s own d o c k e t . R i d d l e s p r i g g e r v. E r v i n , 519 So. 2d 486, 487 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . 2 2111258 requesting In that the t r i a l court vacate i t s dismissal order. t h a t m o t i o n , Young a s s e r t e d t h a t he h a d f i l e d petition i n October pendency of permitted the to 2006. He bankruptcy pursue the alleged that, proceeding, action against a bankruptcy because he had of the been until SAMC not the bankruptcy c o u r t approved h i s doing so, which the bankruptcy court h a d n o t done. The trial court s e t the motion f o r a hearing, a f t e r which the t r i a l motion. 2 postjudgment court denied the No a p p e a l was t a k e n f r o m t h e F e b r u a r y 2011 d i s m i s s a l order. On May 10, 2011, Young f i l e d , 60(b), A l a . R. C i v . P., motion, t h r o u g h new c o u n s e l , a R u l e s e e k i n g t o have the c o u r t s e t a s i d e t h e F e b r u a r y 2011 d i s m i s s a l o r d e r . that motion d i d not r e l y 60(b), the motion mentioned "committed malfeasance" on any specific subpart trial Although of Rule t h a t Young's f o r m e r a t t o r n e y h a d i n h i s h a n d l i n g o f Young's action, We n o t e t h a t , a f t e r h i s f i r s t p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was d e n i e d , Young f i l e d a " m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r " t h e r u l i n g on h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t a l s o " d e n i e d . " Our supreme c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d " t h a t i f a p a r t y has h i s own p o s t - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n d e n i e d , t h e r e v i e w o f t h a t d e n i a l i s by a p p e a l . The r u l e s do n o t p r o v i d e f o r a ' m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r ' the d e n i a l o f one's own p o s t - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . " Ex p a r t e M u t u a l Sav. L i f e I n s . Co., 765 So. 2d 649, 651 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . 2 3 2111258 thus indicating t h a t Young m i g h t be p r o c e e d i n g Rule 60(b)(1), which provides a basis j u d g m e n t on t h e g r o u n d s o f " m i s t a k e , or excusable under e i t h e r for relief inadvertence, a surprise, n e g l e c t , " o r Rule 60(b)(6), which permits a t r i a l c o u r t t o s e t a s i d e a j u d g m e n t f o r "any o t h e r r e a s o n relief." from motion; Young f i l e d a r e p l y , a n d SAMC f i l e d a s u p p l e m e n t a l r e s p o n s e . After 3 a hearing, 3 SAMC f i l e d a response the t r i a l R u l e 60(b) reads, court denied t o Young's justifying the Rule 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n on i n pertinent part: "On m o t i o n a n d upon s u c h t e r m s as a r e j u s t , t h e c o u r t may r e l i e v e a party or a party's legal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from a f i n a l judgment, o r d e r , o r proceeding f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: (1) m i s t a k e , i n a d v e r t e n c e , s u r p r i s e , o r e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t ; (2) n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e w h i c h b y due d i l i g e n c e c o u l d n o t have b e e n d i s c o v e r e d i n t i m e t o move f o r a new t r i a l u n d e r [ A l a . R. C i v . P . , ] R u l e 5 9 ( b ) ; (3) f r a u d (whether h e r e t o f o r e d e n o m i n a t e d i n t r i n s i c o r e x t r i n s i c ) , misrepresentation, or other misconduct o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y ; (4) t h e j u d g m e n t i s v o i d ; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or d i s c h a r g e d , o r a p r i o r j u d g m e n t upon w h i c h i t i s b a s e d has been r e v e r s e d o r o t h e r w i s e v a c a t e d , o r i t i s no l o n g e r e q u i t a b l e t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t s h o u l d have p r o s p e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n ; o r (6) a n y o t h e r r e a s o n justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The m o t i o n shall be made w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , a n d f o r r e a s o n s ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , a n d (3) n o t more t h a n f o u r (4) months a f t e r t h e j u d g m e n t , o r d e r , o r p r o c e e d i n g was e n t e r e d o r t a k e n . " 4 2111258 J u l y 29, 2 0 1 1 . Young d i d n o t a p p e a l f r o m t h e J u l y 2011 o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n . N e a r l y a y e a r l a t e r , on J u n e 20, 2012, Young, t h r o u g h h i s third attorney, f i l e d what he e n t i t l e d and t o S e t f o r T r i a l . " The m o t i o n "Motion to Reinstate made no r e f e r e n c e t o R u l e 60(b) o r any o t h e r r u l e ; h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e we c o n s t r u e a m o t i o n by i t s "essence" Mutual Sav. L i f e (stating motion, and n o t by i t s nomenclature, I n s . Co., 765 So. 2d 649, 650 ( A l a . 1998) t h a t an a p p e l l a t e not j u s t s e e Ex p a r t e c o u r t "looks t o the essence to i t s t i t l e , s h o u l d be t r e a t e d t o determine under our Rules c o n s t r u e Young's m o t i o n of C i v i l of a how t h e m o t i o n P r o c e d u r e " ) , we t o be a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n seeking t o have t h e F e b r u a r y 2011 d i s m i s s a l o r d e r s e t a s i d e b e c a u s e o f his o r i g i n a l attorney's alleged neglect of the action. responded t o Young's m o t i o n , had entered been noting that the dismissal i n February 2011, t h a t the order postjudgment motion d i r e c t e d t o t h e d i s m i s s a l o r d e r had been d e n i e d , a R u l e 60(b) motion SAMC that d i r e c t e d t o the d i s m i s s a l order had a l s o b e e n d e n i e d , a n d t h a t no a p p e a l h a d b e e n t a k e n f r o m a n y o f t h e trial court's orders i n the case. SAMC's r e s p o n s e , a n d t h e t r i a l Young filed a reply to c o u r t s e t a h e a r i n g on Young's 5 2111258 motion. After motion on A u g u s t court; however, jurisdiction, appeal to the hearing, 14, 2012. because Young this timely court Alabama Supreme denied Young's appealed lacked Court, the appeal back t o t h i s Code 1975, § court to this appellate s e e A l a . Code 1975, 12-3-10, we t r a n s f e r r e d t h e the transferred the t r i a l which, court, in turn, pursuant to A l a . 12-2-7(6). On a p p e a l , Young a r g u e s t h a t t h e F e b r u a r y 2011 d i s m i s s a l order was improperly alone i s insufficient dismissal. entered to See, e.g., G i l l because warrant delay the in severe prosecution sanction of v. C o b e r n , 36 So. 3d 31, 33 ( A l a . 2009) ( r e v e r s i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l o f an a c t i o n b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d reflected failed that the p l a i n t i f f ' s t o appear at a p r e t r i a l attorney conference had inadvertently and c o n t a i n e d no e v i d e n c e o f c o n t u m a c i o u s c o n d u c t o r w i l l f u l d e f a u l t ) ; B l a k e v. Stinson, 5 So. 3d 615, 618-19 ( A l a . C i v . App. (determining that a three-year period evidence contumacious of insufficient basis conduct for dismissal or of i n a c t i v i t y , willful under Rule 2008) without default, was 41(b)); and S t e p h e n s o n v. M e r r i l l L y n c h , P i e r c e , F e n n e r & S m i t h , I n c . , 94 0 So. 2d 307, 308 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ( r e v e r s i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l 6 2111258 of an action when the record did not reflect contumacious conduct or o t h e r extreme c i r c u m s t a n c e s w a r r a n t i n g dismissal); but (Ala. 2000) an action see Mangiafico (plurality v. opinion) b a s e d on t h e Street, (affirming (Ala. and 1991) because the record years, to warned the Young the parties dismissed G & G record i s correct of the 582 trial So. court's 2d 529, 531 ( s t a t i n g t h a t "the justify that t i m e s by activity there i s not law, sufficient Civ. o f E d u c . , 365 order P., So. hearing had that mere been generally, circumstances inactivity 7 30 case days). b a s i s upon w h i c h of must be a See Smith (Ala. 662 r u l e i s t h a t a lengthy p e r i o d of i n the the had inactivity, dismissal. 2d 659, the been p e n d i n g occurred within under Alabama period, dismissal that, a summary-judgment o f i n a c t i v i t y , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t 4 separate that, v. W i l c o x C n t y . Bd. and Corp., indicated t o b a s e a R u l e 4 1 ( b ) , A l a . R. case" dismissal i m p o s e d by appear at i f no even f o r a l e n g t h y may 1103 i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e a c t i o n had s e v e r a l 6-month p e r i o d s w o u l d be 2d ( a f f i r m i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l o f an a c t i o n b a s e d on failure 6 the deadline H e n d e r s o n v. plaintiff's nearly So. f a i l u r e of the p l a i n t i f f to i n i t i a t e a r b i t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s w i t h i n the order); 767 1978) inactivity particular coupled with 2111258 "some o t h e r a c t t o w a r r a n t t h e s e v e r e p e n a l t y o f d i s m i s s a l " ) ; B l a k e , 5 So. 3d a t 618-19. However, Young's argument i s t o no avail, because we are not reviewing the February 2011 dismissal order. Young n e v e r his action. not once, court. a p p e a l e d t h e F e b r u a r y 2011 o r d e r dismissing I n s t e a d , he c h o s e t o s e e k r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 60(b) but twice, before B e c a u s e Young s e e k i n g r e v i e w i n an failed to appeal either appellate the February 2011 d i s m i s s a l o r d e r o r t h e J u l y 2011 d e n i a l o f h i s f i r s t 60(b) motion and has a p p e a l e d o n l y t h e d e n i a l R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , t h i s of the t r i a l motion. 1000 below, of h i s second c o u r t may c o n s i d e r o n l y t h e p r o p r i e t y court's order Metropolitan Life ( A l a . C i v . App. Rule denying Rule 60(b) I n s . Co. v. A k i n s , 388 So. 2d 999, 1980). we l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n h i s second However, as we will o v e r Young's a p p e a l . explain 4 "'Alabama c a s e l a w has p l a c e d a significant l i m i t a t i o n upon t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 60(b) where a movant has p r e v i o u s l y sought 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 o f t h i s c o u r t ' s jurisdiction over this appeal. However, because j u r i s d i c t i o n a l matters are o f such magnitude, t h i s c o u r t i s p e r m i t t e d t o n o t i c e a l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n ex mero motu. See W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 70 So. 3d 332, 333 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) . 4 8 2111258 r e l i e f u n d e r t h a t r u l e . As s t a t e d b y t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e K e i t h , 771 So. 2d 1018 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , " [ a ] f t e r a t r i a l c o u r t has d e n i e d a postjudgment motion pursuant t o Rule 60(b), that c o u r t does n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n a s u c c e s s i v e postjudgment motion t o 'reconsider' or o t h e r w i s e r e v i e w i t s o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n . " 771 So. 2d a t 1022 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . I n o t h e r w o r d s , a p a r t y who has p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d an u n s u c c e s s f u l m o t i o n s e e k i n g r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 60(b) may n o t p r o p e r l y f i l e a s e c o n d m o t i o n i n t h e t r i a l court that, i n e f f e c t , requests the t r i a l court to r e v i s i t i t s d e n i a l o f t h e f i r s t m o t i o n , s u c h as b y r e a s s e r t i n g t h e g r o u n d s r e l i e d upon i n t h e f i r s t m o t i o n . See Wadsworth v. M a r k e l I n s . Co., 906 So. 2d 179, 182 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( " S u c c e s s i v e R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n s on t h e same g r o u n d s a r e g e n e r a l l y considered motions t o r e c o n s i d e r the o r i g i n a l r u l i n g and a r e n o t a u t h o r i z e d b y R u l e 6 0 ( b ) . " ) . ' " W i l l i a m s v. W i l l i a m s , 70 So. 3d 332, 334 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009) (quoting Pinkerton Chamblee, 934 second trial Rule court asserted Markel 390-91 386, ( A l a . C i v . App. I n c . v. 2005)) c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n Young's 60(b) m o t i o n , reinstate which Young's 2011 R u l e o f Young's former merely action Rule on attorney. 60(b) m o t i o n s 9 requested that the t h e same 60(b) m o t i o n I n s . Co., 906 So. 2d 179, 182 ("Successive Servs., added i n W i l l i a m s ) . i n t h e May malfeasance Investigations 2d So. (second emphasis The t r i a l Sec. & on ground -- n a m e l y , t h e See Wadsworth v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) t h e same grounds are 2111258 g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d motions t o r e c o n s i d e r the o r i g i n a l ruling and a r e n o t a u t h o r i z e d by R u l e 60(b) . " ) ; s e e a l s o W i l l i a m s , 70 So. 3d a t 334. no j u r i s d i c t i o n We have h e l d t h a t " [ b ] e c a u s e a t r i a l to entertain a s u c c e s s i v e Rule c o u r t has 60(b) motion b a s e d upon t h e same g r o u n d s as an e a r l i e r R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , an o r d e r g r a n t i n g o r d e n y i n g s u c h a s u c c e s s i v e m o t i o n a n u l l i t y a n d w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . " 2d a t 391. Thus, b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l o v e r Young's s e c o n d Rule motion, Chamblee, 934 So. court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n 60(b) m o t i o n , o v e r Young's a p p e a l o f t h e t r i a l ... i s we lack jurisdiction court's order denying that and, a c c o r d i n g l y , we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l . APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , Moore, and D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. 10

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

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