Michael D. Brooks v. Franklin Primary Health Center, Inc., and Charles White
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 04/15/2011 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 2100224 M i c h a e l D. Brooks v. F r a n k l i n Primary H e a l t h Center, Inc., and C h a r l e s White Appeal from M o b i l e C i r c u i t Court (CV-07-2293.51) THOMPSON, Presiding Michael former Judge. D. B r o o k s employer, appeals Franklin from a judgment ordering h i s Primary Health Center, I n c . ( " F r a n k l i n H e a l t h " ) , and i t s c h i e f e x e c u t i v e officer, Charles White ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as" F r a n k l i n " ) , t o 2100224 pay him nominal contract against This this is 53 claims a second time Brooks v. 3d on his claim of breach of Franklin. 932 parties ( A l a . C i v . App. summary judgment of against these Franklin breach of asserted $100 In So. appealed of the court. Inc., damages Franklin Primary 2010) entered contract in and arising have Health before Center, ("Brooks I " ) , B r o o k s favor fraud out been of of Franklin that the Brooks on had termination of B r o o k s ' s e m p l o y m e n t as an o b s t e t r i c i a n - g y n e c o l o g i s t ("OB-GYN") with Franklin judgment as Health. to the breach-of-contract contract claim, This 1 fraud claim, claim and law." Id. at trial court On to that enter but holding "Franklin failed prima f a c i e showing that there fact court i t was 937. as to a the judgment c a u s e was for further proceedings. award for nominal i t summary as the to the breach-of- genuine i s s u e of Id. at remand, F r a n k l i n f i l e d a m o t i o n a s k i n g an the t o m e e t i t s b u r d e n t o make a to Accordingly, reversed that, i s no entitled affirmed damages in as material a matter remanded to of the 938. the favor trial of court Brooks on A r e c i t a t i o n of the u n d e r l y i n g f a c t s are not necessary for d i s p o s i t i o n of t h i s appeal. A statement of the f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e , as e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h i s p o i n t i n t h e l i t i g a t i o n , can b e f o u n d i n B r o o k s I , 53 So. 3d a t 9 3 3 - 3 5 . 1 2 2100224 the breach-of contract motion and in amount o f $100. the entered Brooks reversed contract, Brooks he is i f so, that because entitled to trial to court Brooks granted nominal damages the summary judgment Franklin alleging have a jury the amount determine of damages was breach of whether the employment agreement i t had w i t h determine the appealed. to h i s claim against F r a n k l i n breached and, The a judgment awarding argues as claim. Brooks he is to receive. In asking the damages, Franklin judgment as "determined to court to award that, asserted the that damages i n t h i s trial in reversing breach-of-contract even though 'Brooks c a s e ' ... , [ t h e t r i a l ] Brooks the claim, was nominal this unable court [the nominal fact is breached little trial it damages consented instead." should to burden to nominal to a have entered Franklin disputed the employment reason limited court agreement, but, the Court damages." judgment being 3 or the Therefore, entered prove not [ a ] s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on t h e b a s i s o f l a c k o f rather court to should entered trial] summary have damages; an award of that i t had in i t said, "there parties with a Franklin said, against i t for 2100224 nominal damages, w h i c h , court's opinion In Brooks the trial claim material i n Brooks I, supra, court's was fact B r o o k s had because, existed under the his 53 So. 3d at arguments, 935. this i n accordance with he argued to t h i s on the said, as to whether terms of the We this I. Franklin properly terminated I, was summary j u d g m e n t improper obligations i t said, wrote, genuine he issues fulfilled agreements Brooks. in and In pertinent of his whether Brooks addressing part, following: "We n o t e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t s e t f o r t h the grounds upon which i t entered the summary judgment. I n i t s m o t i o n f o r a summary judgment, Franklin argued that because Brooks turned down F r a n k l i n ' s o f f e r t o s t a y an a d d i t i o n a l m o n t h a f t e r the o b s t e t r i c s program [ a t F r a n k l i n H e a l t h ] c l o s e d , a n d i n s t e a d i m m e d i a t e l y t o o k a j o b a s an OB-GYN a t another facility i n Mobile, Brooks suffered no damages. "Proof of the damages resulting from a defendant's a l l e g e d breach of c o n t r a c t i s a r e q u i r e d element i n a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m . See S h a f f e r v . R e g i o n s F i n . C o r p . , 29 So. 3 d 872 , 880 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) ( q u o t i n g R e y n o l d s M e t a l s Co. v . H i l l , 825 So. 2d 100, 105 ( A l a . 2002)) ("'The e l e m e n t s of a breach-of-contract c l a i m u n d e r A l a b a m a l a w a r e (1) a valid contract binding the p a r t i e s ; (2) the p l a i n t i f f ' s p e r f o r m a n c e u n d e r t h e c o n t r a c t ; (3) t h e defendant's nonperformance; and (4) resulting 4 that breach-of-contract h i s employment f o r cause. agreed with court court the 2100224 damages.'"). In s u b m i t t i n g evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Brooks had immediately begun working with the Greater Mobile P h y s i c i a n s Group after leaving Franklin Health, Franklin presented substantial e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t B r o o k s was u n a b l e t o p r o v e damages i n t h i s c a s e . Brooks f a i l e d to submit any e v i d e n c e t o the c o n t r a r y . However, B r o o k s ' s f a i l u r e to submit evidence of damages i s , alone, an i n s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . "'Alabama l a w p r o v i d e s f o r n o m i n a l damages i f a b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t i s proven, even i f a b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t p l a i n t i f f cannot prove actual damages. Knox Kershaw, Inc. v. K e r s h a w , 552 So. 2d 1 2 6 , 128 ( A l a . 1989) ("It i s w e l l s e t t l e d , however, t h a t once a b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t has b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d , as i t was i n t h i s c a s e , t h e n o n b r e a c h i n g p a r t y is entitled to nominal damages e v e n i f t h e r e was a failure of proof r e g a r d i n g a c t u a l d a m a g e s . " ) ; s e e a l s o J a m e s S. K e m p e r & Co. S o u t h e a s t , I n c . v . Cox & Assocs., I n c . , 434 So. 2 d 1380 , 1385 ( A l a . 1983) ("When t h e e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e s a b r e a c h , even i f o n l y t e c h n i c a l , t h e r e i s n o t h i n g d i s c r e t i o n a r y about the award of nominal damages."). Thus, even i f Jones and t h e companies failed to present substantial e v i d e n c e of a c t u a l damages, H a m i l t o n w o u l d n o t be e n t i t l e d t o a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on the breach-of-contract claim on that ground.' " J o n e s v . H a m i l t o n , 53 So. 3d 1 3 4 , 142 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on Brooks's b r e a c h - o f - c o n t r a c t c l a i m c o u l d not p r o p e r l y be e n t e r e d on t h e b a s i s o f B r o o k s ' s a p p a r e n t l a c k o f damages a l o n e . " Brooks I , 53 So. 3d at 935-36. 5 2100224 Franklin contends constituted a holding a judgment in favor misunderstood take this On remand, "'the as mandate determined court."'" 2000) 980 , to Ex p a r t e 982 Alabama extent (Ala. P o w e r Co., that 431 because rebutting Franklin's damages, sustain we a summary discussion ordinarily evidence held App. that to rebut damages. So. I ; we by 607, 608 2d quoting 155 the reviewing (Ala. Civ. i t was had failed ground judgment. that, that The to to had not is set a a forth summary 6 the summary evidence any to above judgment a movant, t h a t r u l e i s i n a p p l i c a b l e when a n o n m o v a n t f a i l s To i n the a "fact" 2d parte insufficient to present by So. suffered i f a nonmovant f a i l s asserted App. Ex submit alone although 441 turn entitled he law in the meaning, (Ala. 1983)). argued that therefore i n t e n t and given 151, assertion Franklin decision. i t s true So. 2d entered duty i s to comply w i t h 1983), Brooks explains proper to somehow have C a r o l i n a M i l l s L u m b e r Co., F r a n k l i n had judgment our court's J o n e s , 774 Civ. should i n Brooks directions ( q u o t i n g W a l k e r v. language for nominal clarify trial the court holding "according by above trial Brooks court's opportunity appellate the t h a t the of this that is substantial to submit general evidence 2100224 of damages in a breach-of-contract nonmovant can show breached, the nonmovant nominal the contract i s entitled because, had i f the fact been recover to in at least damages. After pointing plaintiff's result that claim, out failure to i n the entry defendant in a the submit of a well settled evidence summary of that damages judgment breach-of-contract law cannot i n favor action, we a went of a on to discuss Franklin's failure t o meet i t s b u r d e n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 56(c), A l a . R. of demonstrating issues of Brooks's material that of law. determination employment issue. determined fact for existed claim i t was e n t i t l e d I d . a t 937. as to contract determination that fact breach-of-contract demonstrate matter C i v . P., to t o a summary I, this Franklin issue, other no and we had genuine elements of failure to and F r a n k l i n ' s In Brooks whether at as that judgment court as a made no breached d i d not make the any as t o w h e t h e r B r o o k s w o u l d u l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l on A fair that reading there were of our opinion still genuine t o be d e t e r m i n e d , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , further litigation of the issue. 7 indicates issues of that we material we r e m a n d e d t h e c a u s e Our o p i n i o n i n Brooks I 2100224 should n o t be r e a d as h o l d i n g contract claim, the t r i a l t h a t , as t o B r o o k s ' s court should have e n t e r e d breach-ofa judgment a w a r d i n g B r o o k s n o m i n a l damages r a t h e r t h a n a summary j u d g m e n t in favor of For Franklin. the above reasons, the trial court's a w a r d i n g n o m i n a l damages t o B r o o k s i s r e v e r s e d , is once a g a i n proceed remanded w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s with consistent the with this R E V E R S E D AND Pittman, litigation of this judgment and t h i s to the t r i a l case in court to a opinion. REMANDED. Bryan, Thomas, a n d M o o r e , 8 cause J J . , concur. manner
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.
