Ex parte Ocean Reef Developers II, LLC. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Michael Maddox v. Ocean Reef Developers II, LLC)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/04/2011 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, 2011-2012 2100942 Ex p a r t e Ocean Reef D e v e l o p e r s I I , LLC PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Michael Maddox v. Ocean Reef D e v e l o p e r s (Etowah C i r c u i t MOORE, Court, I I , LLC) CV-08-900158) Judge. Ocean defendant Reef Developers i n an a c t i o n I I , LLC pending ("Ocean i n t h e Etowah Reef"), Circuit the Court 2100942 ("the Alabama t r i a l directing denying the Alabama Ocean R e e f ' s dismissing Michael the court"), petitions reasons trial motion discussed below, 28, and On and March an agreement w i t h purchase terms of 2005, a further the escrow provided Reef In receive attorney to its the regarding called resident, the City, f o r Maddox w o u l d be fully "the of of any a of prevailing party enforcement, to The make a agreement refunded its dispute, entered Florida. deposit event For construction purchase the order History Alabama on an petition. The perform order enter $104,250. the i t s costs i f contractual the s h a l l be including purchase entitled reasonable fees." In o r d e r to s a t i s f y h i s deposit 2005, Maddox p r o c u r e d Alabama an aside a g a i n s t Ocean R e e f . i n Panama to agreement s t a t e d t h a t to Procedural Maddox, of and grant agreement that failed obligations. we Ocean Reef purchase set dismiss condominium into deposit Ocean of to to Maddox's c o m p l a i n t Facts into court f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i n favor a letter of Bay of c r e d i t County escrow agent, f o r $104,250. o b l i g a t i o n , on A p r i l 13, from Exchange Bank of Land & A b s t r a c t , Ocean Reef's I n M a r c h 2008, t h e p a r t i e s became 2 2100942 embroiled in fulfilled a controversy contractual its as to whether obligations Ocean to Reef had complete the c o n s t r u c t i o n of Maddox's condominium w i t h i n the t i m e s p e c i f i e d in the p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t and of the transaction as t o n o t i f y Maddox of required the terms agreement. Maddox, his attorney, informed Ocean Reef to default and Alabama Ocean Reef cancellation disputed that obligations, be of through by in the letter i t had and correspondence of failed i t did of that return David he or Owen, considered the of closing purchase return Ocean Reef t o p e r f o r m any not the from requested credit. the or apparently i t s contractual cancel the letter of credit. On April 16, 2008, Florida attorney, Circuit ("the of F l o r i d a , i n and declaring a g r e e m e n t ; he refund letter April of that f o r Bay In that his and 2008, w h i l e an the a against the purchase cancellation Reef sought a purchase agreement, and return fees and F l o r i d a a c t i o n was 3 the his Judicial Ocean Maddox breached award of a t t o r n e y Hess, Fourteenth complaint, Ocean R e e f had deposit, Brian County, a l s o sought to terminate of c r e d i t , 29, through f i l e d a complaint i n the Florida action"). judgment a Maddox, of the costs. On pending, Maddox, 2100942 through ("the Owen, filed a complaint trial court A l a b a m a a c t i o n " ) naming as d e f e n d a n t s E x c h a n g e Bank, County filed 22, Land & Abstract, i n the Alabama 2008, Bay letter that and County & Maddox In h i s asserted Abstract and a s i g h t of c r e d i t . Reef. Maddox Land t h e demand f o r payment said, Ocean action, Exchange Bank a l e t t e r the i n the Alabama draft complaint that, had Bay on April presented to demanding payment asserted, among other on things, s h o u l d n o t be h o n o r e d b e c a u s e , he "[Ocean R e e f ] has d e f a u l t e d [ o n t h e p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t ] l e a v i n g no money due [ O c e a n R e e f ] " ; M a d d o x s o u g h t a n i m m e d i a t e injunction rights or a under the l e t t e r prohibit Exchange Bank under the l e t t e r costs. temporary r e s t r a i n i n g of c r e d i t , In the complaint i n the Alabama in the cancellation Alabama trial Florida action, of the l e t t e r court entered from honoring the l e t t e r he was of c r e d i t . On A p r i l an o r d e r enjoining of c r e d i t , 4 fees action, and Maddox the F l o r i d a action also to f o r payment a n d an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y filed his injunction any r e q u e s t a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he r e c e n t l y h a d f i l e d that, to protect a permanent from honoring of c r e d i t , order seeking and the 30, 2008, t h e Exchange Bank i n s t r u c t i n g Exchange Bank 2100942 to hold the funds at issue, and scheduling the matter for a hearing. On December a judgment agreement entitled plus court and t o an 1 that that, the F l o r i d a Ocean as a result Florida and circuit court Reef had b r e a c h e d immediate refund interest, The shall parties and finding accrued credit. 11, 2008, to circuit of that breach, a return of also was he h a d the stated purchase Maddox of a l l deposits court retain jurisdiction the entered paid, letter that "this o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r and t h e f o r a l l p u r p o s e s , i n c l u d i n g the award of a t t o r n e y costs." On January 26, of 2009, the Alabama trial fees court p l a c e d t h e A l a b a m a a c t i o n on t h e c o u r t ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d o c k e t "until further notice." On court 23, 2008, Maddox f o r an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y Maddox the December claimed Florida attorney's a c t i o n , b u t he i n c u r r e d b y Owen r e l a t i n g fees fees moved the Florida and c o s t s . i n c u r r e d by d i d not c l a i m to the Alabama circuit In h i s motion, Hess relating any a t t o r n e y ' s action. to fees On M a r c h 4, Ocean Reef appealed t h a t judgment to the F l o r i d a D i s t r i c t Court of A p p e a l s ; t h a t court a f f i r m e d the judgment entered i n f a v o r o f M a d d o x on J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 . See O c e a n R e e f D e v e l o p e r s I I , L L C v . M a d d o x , 11 S o . 3 d 359 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) (table). 1 5 2100942 2009, the F l o r i d a Maddox $34,793.26 On J a n u a r y the Alabama that circuit i n attorney's his law firm the judgment attorney's awarding and c o s t s . an a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t i n d i d not include stated i n the F l o r i d a fees Maddox action fees paid t o Owen a n d " f o r i t s work to e n j o i n [Ocean R e e f ' s ] d r a w on t h e l e t t e r Florida fees a judgment I n h i s amended c o m p l a i n t , he h a d r e c o v e r e d that entered 26, 2010, Maddox f i l e d action. but court case." of c r e d i t and t o a d v i s e The amended c o m p l a i n t also wrongful and a s s i s t i n the stated: "16. Because [ M a d d o x ] has p r e v a i l e d i n t h e F l o r i d a [ a c t i o n ] , i t h a s now b e e n f i n a l l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t [ O c e a n R e e f ] h a d no r i g h t t o m a i n t a i n p o s s e s s i o n o f [Maddox]'s l e t t e r o f c r e d i t a n d h a d no r i g h t t o a t t e m p t t o d r a w on t h i s l e t t e r o f c r e d i t i n A p r i l 2008. Pursuant t o S e c t i o n 5(d) o f t h e [ p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t ] and Alabama l a w , as p r e v a i l i n g party, [Maddox] i s e n t i t l e d to a l l attorneys fees i n c u r r e d i n p r e v e n t i n g [Ocean Reef's] wrongful attempt to draw and i n p u r s u i n g t h e r e t u r n o r c a n c e l l a t i o n o f his l e t t e r of c r e d i t . " Based on t h e above $19,605.37, attorney "plus fees allegations, interest incurred in and the Maddox costs, sought plus pursuit of an any award of additional th[e Alabama] action." Ocean Reef by Maddox in moved the to dismiss Alabama t h e amended c o m p l a i n t action, 6 asserting, among filed other 2100942 things, barred t h a t Maddox's by t h e d o c t r i n e Alabama After request trial court denied court reconsider," Ocean Reef relief. August 26, court to petition stay Ocean was the Reef's denied fees motion this 2011, court this to Ocean R e e f ' s petitioned i t s proceedings for a writ and c o s t s After a hearing, of res j u d i c a t a . the Alabama t r i a l On f o r attorney pending court dismiss. "motion to f o r mandamus ordered the resolution trial of the o f mandamus. Analysis Before first proceeding to a discussion a d d r e s s Maddox's petition denial for a of a writ contention of motion to t h a t we mandamus. dismiss of the m e r i t s , a argues motion by a p e t i t i o n mandamus, National Co., the Ex 825 S o . 2 d 758 parte Liberty ( A l a .2002). As e x p l a i n e d d e n i a l of a motion to dismiss by way of a p e t i t i o n in denying remedied Southland a motion by appeal. Bank, 514 that for a judgment g e n e r a l l y i s not reviewable citing must cannot consider Maddox or we the the summary f o r w r i t of Life Insurance i n that g e n e r a l l y i s not case, reviewable f o r a w r i t o f mandamus b e c a u s e a n y e r r o r to dismiss 825 So. ordinarily 2d S o . 2 d 9 5 4 , 955 7 at c a n be 7 61-62. ( A l a . 1987), adequately In Ex parte our supreme 2100942 court used held that a p e t i t i o n to review an o r d e r f o r a w r i t o f mandamus c o u l d denying a motion to dismiss n o t be that was b a s e d on t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a b e c a u s e t h e m o v a n t could obtain parte adequate relief b y way o f a p p e a l . S t o n e , 502 S o . 2 d 6 8 3 , 686 ( A l a . a writ on o f mandamus t o r e v i e w grounds adjudicated that and issue 1986) ( d e n y i n g order in See a l s o d i d not present a petition for denying motion complaint had Ex to dismiss already justiciable been controversy). However, s u b s e q u e n t c a s e s from o u r supreme c o u r t have r e v i e w e d orders res denying to dismiss j u d i c a t a through a p e t i t i o n parte Jefferson parte Sears, it a motion County, on t h e d o c t r i n e f o r w r i t o f mandamus. 656 S o . 2 d 382 ( A l a . 1995); o u r supreme c o u r t which t o seek t h i s Court's review dismiss on t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a . " LCS predicated I n c . , 12 S o . 3 d 5 5 , 56 This court, follow, and Ex court i s bound and, i n case the latest When declared f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s a n a p p r o p r i a t e of See Ex R o e b u c k & C o . , 895 S o . 2 d 2 6 5 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . l a s t addressed the subject, "a p e t i t i o n based that method by of the d e n i a l of a motion to Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 2008). by the decisions o f any doubt as to which pronouncement c o n t r o l s . 8 of our supreme decision A t l a n t i c Am. to Life 2100942 Ins. Co. v. 148 ( C i v . App. c o u r t has the Hamilton, 48 1972). A l a . App. Moreover, general prohibition parte Liberty against Ex The supreme c o u r t a l s o has mandamus t o r e v i e w Nat'l Life Co., 80 6 So. 440, the orders 2d 376 3d 104 judicata 512 of 78, judicata subject Id. 2d 2008) 81 our supreme That benefit seek for a writ Co., 825 So. 2d on A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , parte J.E. the Moore, Whisman v. One i t prevents litigation over would, large of 9 an at 861. see Ex p a r t e C i n c i n n a t i repetitive in a on Similarly, (citing of o f mandamus. Wood Estes 6-5¬ Co., So. the avoid be denying 533, 541 lost Co., doctrine from same s u b j e c t res between Power the defendant part, order 3d Alabama b e n e f i t of a to d o c t r i n e of litigation 36 Ins. § of which are i n t e n d e d avoid review denial motions to dismiss based W i l l i a m s v. i s that the to of Ex (Ala. 1987)). repeated could to See to defendant see litigation. i s designed C i v . App. res 146, for a writ ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , and same p a r t i e s . So. rule, (Ala. 2010), both of Ins. denying abatement s t a t u t e , multiplicity (Ala. 2d considered petitions the c o m p u l s o r y - c o u n t e r c l a i m the So. that note 263 reviewing of a p e t i t i o n See So. we 171, c o n s i s t e n t l y r e c o g n i z e d c e r t a i n narrow exceptions m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s b y way 42 169, being matter. i f a motion the to 2100942 dismiss the based entry on of erroneously a the d o c t r i n e o n l y by final denied, an b e c a u s e , by t h e t i m e would have litigation, appeal which of that this a petition the specifically doctrine. court a be an motion an for a writ time appeal the and intended after has adequate been remedy defendant expense t o be Hence, we an order of avoided reject review cannot m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s b a s e d on of such would not incurred are the If of the defendant c o u l d appeal, already application argument judgment. way by Maddox's denying a t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a by of Maddox a l s o p r e s e n t s way mandamus. the issue "[w]hether mandamus r e v i e w of the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss based upon the d o c t r i n e of r e s j u d i c a t a i s a p p r o p r i a t e where t h e r e i s a p e n d i n g m o t i o n f o r [a] s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i n t h e trial c o u r t and where t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s was f i l e d by a d e f e n d a n t t h a t has shown a p r o p e n s i t y t o delay proceedings." As to the indicate f i r s t point, that mandamus on a motion Ocean J u l y 7, for a the Reef 2011. summary materials filed At i t s petition that time, judgment m o t i o n f o r a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t was Alabama t r i a l court. submitted M o r e o v e r , we 10 i n the not to for Maddox had Alabama then this a court writ not filed a c t i o n , so pending before know o f no of procedural a the rule 2100942 or caselaw, party from filing to a r u l i n g party the and Maddox has not c i t e d a petition for a writ on a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s has f i l e d any, that prevents o f mandamus a relating s o l e l y because the opposing an o f f e n s i v e m o t i o n f o r a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on merits. As to the second p o i n t , of p r o c e d u r e r e q u i r e filed P. petition does 41 not argue days denying petition that a petition "within a reasonable time." Maddox order that we n o t e Ocean outside will after that time, Reef, Furthermore, to the extent A l a . R. A p p . which trial court to dismiss, which filed i t s entered the filed the i s the only r e s u l t i n the dismissal of a p e t i t i o n mandamus. rules f o r a w r i t o f mandamus b e Ocean motion a reasonable our a p p e l l a t e Rule 21(a)(3), t h e Alabama Reef's that delay f o r a w r i t of t h a t Maddox i m p l i e s that O c e a n R e e f may b e a b u s i n g t h e l i t i g a t i o n p r o c e s s b y f i l i n g t h e petition 2d f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, 1 2 5 5 , 1261 that the defendants ( A l a . 1993) supreme filing court s e e Ex p a r t e (Maddox, should J . , dissenting) guard reject that against frivolous petitions for a writ b a s e d on t h e D o u b l e J e o p a r d y C l a u s e i n o r d e r we Spears, contention. 11 (noting criminal o f mandamus to delay Upon p r e l i m i n a r y 621 S o . review trials), of this 2100942 matter, stay this the petition all court, Alabama materials thoroughly court's submitted considering this court, that i t acted proceedings by the the arguments f o r the reasons stated c o r r e c t l y and t h a t a motion to because After parties, advanced below, and on b o t h remains Ocean Reef general to the substance elements after sides, convinced d i d not f i l e of the p e t i t i o n , of the doctrine the reviewing f o r a w r i t o f mandamus s o l e l y f o r d i l a t o r y Turning the trial 26, 2011, g r a n t e d appeared t o have s u b s t a n t i a l m e r i t . the petition on A u g u s t the purposes. we note that of res j u d i c a t a are: " ( 1 ) a p r i o r j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s ; (2) r e n d e r e d b y a c o u r t o f c o m p e t e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n ; (3) s u b s t a n t i a l l y the same p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e p r i o r c a s e a r e i n v o l v e d i n t h e c u r r e n t c a s e ; a n d (4) t h e same c a u s e of a c t i o n p r e s e n t e d i n both s u i t s . " Ex parte Jefferson do not dispute that of Maddox's c l a i m jurisdiction They d i f f e r , doctrine Alabama County, 656 S o . 2 d a t 3 8 4 - 8 5 . Maddox o b t a i n e d f o r attorney's in a prior action fees a judgment by a c o u r t involving The p a r t i e s on t h e merits of competent t h e same parties. h o w e v e r , as t o w h e t h e r t h e f o u r t h e l e m e n t o f t h e has been e s t a b l i s h e d . action, he i s s e e k i n g Maddox m a i n t a i n s that, d i f f e r e n t attorney's those awarded i n t h e F l o r i d a a c t i o n and t h a t 12 those i n the fees fees from arose 2100942 solely from Ocean R e e f ' s letter of credit, delivery and Florida action. Maddox, having a " f r a u d u l e n t " attempt wrong notice separate deadlines from that to d r a w on i t s breach were at of the Florida a c t i o n on a l l a t t o r n e y ' s fees a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the purchase incurred the in issue the his t h a t O c e a n R e e f b r e a c h e d t h e p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t , was to recover of O c e a n R e e f , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , m a i n t a i n s p r e v a i l e d i n the agreement, to prevent including Ocean Reef the from drawing that claim entitled enforcement attorney's on the the fees letter of credit. As Ocean complaint, Alabama correctly points out, in his amended Maddox p r e m i s e d h i s r i g h t t o a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i n action parties. Reef solely on the purchase That p r o v i s i o n s t a t e s , i n agreement between the the full: "(D) C o s t s a n d A t t o r n e y ' s F e e s . In the event of a d i s p u t e under t h i s agreement, the p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y shall be entitled to recover its costs of enforcement, i n c l u d i n g reasonable attorney's fees." The plain agreement only language of the p r o v i s i o n s t a t e s t h a t a p a r t y to can i f the recover those fees terms of the agreement. to the attorney's were fees from the i n c u r r e d i n order to other c o n t r a r y , Maddox c a n n o t e s c a p e t h e 13 fact party enforce Hence, d e s p i t e h i s s t r e n u o u s the the argument that his claim 2100942 for attorney's fees characterized, i n the stems Alabama from the underlying p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t by Ocean R e e f . claim for attorney's V i e w Mgmt. C o r p . , fees 644 So. action, regardless Otherwise, at a l l . 2 d 262 breach See attorney's injunctive In the fees in action and Florida a c t i o n , Maddox delivery agreement. attorney's v. no Gulf (holding that, in not entitled declaratory and attorney's fees In fees the t h a t Ocean Reef had deadlines Alabama o n l y by recovered contained action, proving the in violated the Maddox same t h e o r y . was or "wrongful" "fraudulent" solely t h e p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t and because thereby recover Maddox t h a t t h e a t t e m p t e d d r a w on t h e l e t t e r of i t s right payment. " I f a c l a i m , w h i c h a r i s e s out of a s i n g l e wrongful a c t o r d i s p u t e , i s b r o u g h t t o a f i n a l c o n c l u s i o n on the m e r i t s , then a l l o t h e r c l a i m s a r i s i n g out of t h a t same w r o n g f u l a c t o r d i s p u t e a r e b a r r e d , e v e n if those claims are based on different legal t h e o r i e s or seek a d i f f e r e n t f o r m of damages, u n l e s s the evidence necessary to e s t a b l i s h the elements of the a l t e r n a t i v e t h e o r i e s v a r i e s m a t e r i a l l y from the 14 has credit Ocean Reef lost the purchase can always claimed violated the relief). u p o n p r e v a i l i n g on h i s t h e o r y notice seeking of Co. t h e a b s e n c e o f a c o n t r a c t u a l p r o v i s i o n , p a r t y was to how he w o u l d h a v e Romar Dev. ( A l a . 1994) of had to 2100942 evidence action." Equity Under the Vinson action. different, Under judgment judgment 503-04 regardless "Issue seeking the i n the additional, has o b t a i n e d that party claim i s a of whether valid i s merged "'prevented the matter was action a claim to l i t i g a t e into from i n the actually 414 S o . 2 d 8 8 9 , 890 ( A l a . 1981) 32 A l a . L. R e v . 5 0 0 , "Res j u d i c a t a , t h e r e f o r e , b a r s an o p p o r t u n i t y not action. P r e c l u s i o n i n Alabama," i n a subsequent Saad C o n s t r . t h e same a c t i o n a s he p r e s e n t e d a party Owen v . M i l l e r , (1981)). asserting that i n a previous a party from i thas a l r e a d y action." L e e L. C o . v . DPF A r c h i t e c t s , P.C., 851 S o . 2 d 5 0 7 , 517 2002). Maddox does n o t , a n d c a n n o t , d i s p u t e an o p p o r t u n i t y in Maddox h a s p r e s e n t e d of a claim, and first any m a t t e r t h a t c o u l d have been l i t i g a t e d action, (quoting l a w , once i n the 7 2 3 S o . 2 d 6 3 4 , 638 ( A l a . i s merely on t h e m e r i t s presented.'" (Ala. test, i n t h e Alabama Alabama final prior He relief relitigating had recovery o f a c t i o n i n t h e Alabama Florida the for a R e s . Mgmt., I n c . v . V i n s o n , 1998). cause necessary the Florida to present action. t h a t he h a d h i s entire claim f o rattorney's Having 15 failed t o do s o , he fees i s now 2100942 barred claim by the doctrine of r e s j u d i c a t a from pursuing that i n the Alabama a c t i o n . "'"Mandamus is a drastic and e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y w h e r e t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e petitioner to the order sought; (2) a n imperative duty upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t to p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e remedy; and (4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the c o u r t . " E x p a r t e I n t e g o n C o r p . , 672 So. 2 d 4 9 7 , 499 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . "Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t ' l 4 7 8 , 480 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . " Ex parte Progressive (Ala. 2009). to Life S p e c i a l t y I n s . Co., from Ocean Reef on and because necessary f o r the issuance Reef's enter an So. So. 31 petition order complaint the basis judicata, Ocean 888 3d B e c a u s e Ocean R e e f h a s shown a c l e a r t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e amended fees I n s . Co., of i t has d e m o n s t r a t e d of a w r i t and d i r e c t dismissing the other o f mandamus, complaint 663 right attorney's doctrine the Alabama t r i a l Maddox's 661, legal seeking the 2d of res elements we grant court against to Ocean Reef. P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT Pittman, Thompson, Bryan, ISSUED. and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . P.J., concurs i n the r e s u l t , 16 without writing.

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.