Gail Quinn and Patricia Hampton v. Alabama State Board of Education et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: J u l y 27, 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2101107 G a i l Quinn and P a t r i c i a Hampton v. Alabama S t a t e Board o f Education e t a l . Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (CV-11-900029) PITTMAN, This Judge. appeal arises from a judgment entered by t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t i n an a c t i o n f i l e d i n J a n u a r y 2011 b y Gail Quinn students classes and P a t r i c i a Hampton, a t Alabama S t a t e of defendants: named a n d f i c t i t i o u s l y former University teacher-education ("ASU"), a g a i n s t two ( a ) ASU, i t s t r u s t e e s , a n d c e r t a i n named e m p l o y e e s o f ASU ( c o l l e c t i v e l y , 2101107 "the ASU defendants"), Education and and ( b ) t h e Alabama S t a t e ("the Board"), deputy the state education superintendent, (collectively, and t h e B o a r d d e f e n d a n t s superintendent a n d two e m p l o y e e s " t h e Board defendants"). Board of of the Board The ASU defendants f i l e d separate motions t o dismiss i n w h i c h they a s s e r t e d t h e d o c t r i n e s o f s o v e r e i g n and s t a t e - a g e n t immunity; the Board defendants f u r t h e r contended t h a t v a r i o u s c o u n t s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t d i d n o t s t a t e v a l i d c l a i m s as a m a t t e r of law. parties, After receiving the t r i a l briefs arguments from the c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r on M a r c h 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , d i s m i s s i n g the Board defendants entry and from t h e a c t i o n , d i r e c t i n g the o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t as t o t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e B o a r d defendants (see R u l e 54(b), A l a . R. C i v . P . ) , a l l o w i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f s u n t i l A p r i l 4, 2 0 1 1 , t o amend t h e c o m p l a i n t respect to the remaining [d]efendants" (i.e., "[w]ith the ASU d e f e n d a n t s ) , a n d s e t t i n g a h e a r i n g on " t h e amended c o m p l a i n t " for A p r i l 14, 2 0 1 1 . On A p r i l motion pursuant 4, 2011, t h e p l a i n t i f f s filed a t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a t t a c k i n g t h e judgment d i s m i s s i n g t h e B o a r d d e f e n d a n t s . the plaintiffs postjudgment filed an amended c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e ASU d e f e n d a n t s , complaint 5, 2 0 1 1 , restating their s u b s t i t u t i n g c e r t a i n named e m p l o y e e s f o r f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t i e s , 2 On A p r i l and p u r p o r t i n g t o 2101107 again state claims a g a i n s t the Board trial court's having entered a f i n a l Board defendants response motion l e a v e t o amend t h e The B o a r d d e f e n d a n t s i n opposition to the p l a i n t i f f s ' i n which, defendants plaintiffs 1 moved out to of an abundance strike f i l e d a response the despite the judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e and d e s p i t e n o t h a v i n g c o m p l a i n t as t o t h o s e d e f e n d a n t s . a defendants of amended postjudgment caution, complaint; s t a t i n g t h a t the Board filed those the defendants had b e e n i n c l u d e d i n t h e amended c o m p l a i n t p r i m a r i l y i n o r d e r t o a v o i d a p o t e n t i a l c l a i m o f a p p e l l a t e w a i v e r o f any e r r o r a s to t h e March 21, 2011, judgment of dismissal. The ASU defendants a l s o f i l e d a motion t o s t r i k e or d i s m i s s , a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e amended c o m p l a i n t was u n t i m e l y a n d t h a t t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e ASU d e f e n d a n t s were b a r r e d as a m a t t e r o f l a w . hearing was held on the p l a i n t i f f s ' and the A defendants' R u l e 78, A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s t h a t , " [ u ] n l e s s t h e c o u r t o r d e r s o t h e r w i s e , an o r d e r g r a n t i n g a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s s h a l l be deemed t o p e r m i t an a u t o m a t i c r i g h t o f amendment o f t h e p l e a d i n g t o w h i c h t h e m o t i o n i s d i r e c t e d w i t h i n t e n (10) days from s e r v i c e o f t h e o r d e r . " Because the p l a i n t i f f s ' amended c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d on A p r i l 5, 2 0 1 1 , 11 w o r k i n g d a y s a f t e r t h e M a r c h 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , j u d g m e n t o f d i s m i s s a l as t o t h e B o a r d d e f e n d a n t s , i t was u n t i m e l y u n d e r t h a t r u l e , a n d we n e e d not decide whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s grant o f l e a v e t o t h e plaintiffs t o amend t h e i r c o m p l a i n t o n l y a s t o t h e ASU defendants represents an example of a trial court's " o r d e r [ i n g ] o t h e r w i s e " so a s t o a b r o g a t e any a u t o m a t i c r i g h t o f amendment i n u r i n g t o a p l e a d e r u n d e r R u l e 78. 1 3 2101107 m o t i o n s on May 3 1 , 2011, a t w h i c h , among o t h e r t h i n g s , c o u n s e l for the p l a i n t i f f s was not o f f e r e d i n t o evidence or e x h i b i t e d to c o u n s e l f o r the defendants, contended constituted that a certain evidence s u p p o r t i n g the claims against the Board defendants. compel p r o d u c t i o n of initially opposed that but document, plaintiffs' The d e f e n d a n t s moved t o document, which the plaintiffs subsequently assented to after o r a l l y d i r e c t e d t o p r o d u c e t h e document by t h e t r i a l a subsequent The which being court i n hearing. plaintiffs' was which directed postjudgment to the motion March 21, d i s m i s s a l as t o t h e B o a r d d e f e n d a n t s , was upon by t h e t r i a l of A p r i l 2011, 4, judgment not e x p r e s s l y c o u r t w i t h i n 90 d a y s o f A p r i l 2011, of ruled 4, 2011, and no e x p r e s s c o n s e n t o f a l l p a r t i e s t o t h e c o n t i n u e d p e n d e n c y o f that motion appears in the record; that motion was a u t o m a t i c a l l y d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on J u l y 5, 2011 Rule 59.1, A l a . R. Civ. P.). 2 The trial court thus (see entered an R u l e 59.1 p r o v i d e s t h a t a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n t h a t i s n o t r u l e d on by t h e c o u r t w i t h i n 90 d a y s i s deemed d e n i e d a t t h e e x p i r a t i o n of the 90-day p e r i o d . The 9 0 t h day f o l l o w i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' f i l i n g o f t h e i r p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on A p r i l 4, 2011, was Sunday, J u l y 3, 2011, and Monday, J u l y 4, 2011, was a state holiday. Therefore, the p l a i n t i f f s ' postjudgment m o t i o n was d e n i e d on Tuesday, J u l y 5, 2011. See F i r s t A l a b a m a Bank v. McGowan, 758 So. 2d 1116 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , and R i c h b u r g v. C r o m w e l l , 428 So. 2d 621 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . 2 4 2101107 order on claims J u l y 13, against 2011, the that purported Board defendants, a g a i n s t t h e t r u s t e e s o f ASU, against any capacity. ASU court purported dismissed sued in his or her 2011, Ala. claims the judgment w i t h i n 42 d a y s o f t h e d e n i a l o f T h a t a p p e a l was Code 1975, § trial 2011. p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w , a n o t i c e of appeal. the official t o again d i r e c t the e n t r y of a f i n a l On A u g u s t 15, to the of the Board defendants, as t o t h e B o a r d d e f e n d a n t s on A u g u s t 12, pursuant dismiss and d i s m i s s e d a l l damages c l a i m s defendant At the request to again their the p l a i n t i f f s filed t r a n s f e r r e d to t h i s court 12-2-7(6). The plaintiffs' a p p e l l a t e b r i e f s c h a l l e n g e not o n l y the judgment of March 2011, but dismissing their also the July claims 13, 2011, against order the that Board 21, defendants, purported to again d i s m i s s t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e B o a r d d e f e n d a n t s and that did dismiss s e v e r a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e ASU However, because the trial court j u d g m e n t on March 21, lacked residual consider any 2011, d i r e c t e d the as subject-matter to amended complaint Gulf Beach H o t e l , 727, 731 58 So. 3d c o u r t has yet to d i r e c t the in 5 of a final Board defendants, the Inc. ( A l a . 2010). a final entry jurisdiction See defendants. Auth., had defendants. thereafter action v. as Gulf Further, j u d g m e n t as i t to to those State Park the trial to i t s J u l y 13, 2101107 2011, o r d e r as i t a p p l i e s t o any number o f claims pending i n the 13, 2011, trial order, properly before (an o r d e r against to this ASU officers court. the We court. See correctness of the t r i a l the claims R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. when i t i s c l e a r a remain i t is valid, July is Civ. R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. not P. claims pending " i s the e n t r y of judgment A p p e l l a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the c o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l of v a r i o u s claims d e f e n d a n t s must a w a i t t h e e n t r y against Haralson, So. determination, an whether the whether [ t h e y ] may Noland Board of 2d relief 928, 931 appellate plaintiff[s] defendants. "Under can be granted." ( A l a . 2003). court will Inc., properly c a n n o t p r o v e any is not 825 So. 2d i n t u r n Nance v. M a t t h e w s , 622 set Ex to that "'"consider but only Id. ( q u o t i n g Cook v. 83, 89 So. (Ala. 2d 297, 299 2001), (Ala. F u r t h e r , a l l doubts r e g a r d i n g the s u f f i c i e n c y of 6 of parte In making ultimately prevail, possibly prevail."'" Found., court a motion to dismiss i s proper that the p l a i n t i f f upon w h i c h 853 the C i v . P., circumstances 1993)). employees t h u s have f o r r e v i e w w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l quoting and judgment. dismissed Lloyd that time before a g a i n s t c e r t a i n o f t h e ASU We and a d j u d i c a t i n g fewer than a l l the a d j u d i c a t i n g a l l the c l a i m s " ) . defendants, thus conclude t h a t the extent s u b j e c t t o r e v i s i o n a t any a final o f t h e ASU the 2101107 c o m p l a i n t a r e t o be c o n s t r u e d i n f a v o r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s . parte Haralson, In their 853 January b e f o r e the t r i a l d i s m i s s a l was pertinent So. 2d a t 2011 Ex 931. complaint the only complaint c o u r t a t the time t h a t i t s f i n a l judgment o f entered facts. the p l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e d the Both Quinn and Hampton s t u d e n t s a t ASU's C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n who were following graduate r e c e i v e d masters- l e v e l degrees, but they experienced d i f f i c u l t i e s i n o b t a i n i n g p a r t i c u l a r c e r t i f i c a t i o n s from the Board. was denied certification b e g i n n i n g i n 2001 as an g r a d e i n a p a r t i c u l a r ASU taken; although appropriate Quinn's grade academic educational administrator a f t e r having completed c o u r s e o f s t u d y b e c a u s e she was any S p e c i f i c a l l y , Quinn ASU class, in "EDU were 520," able 2009 and the transcript, ASU n o t shown as h a v i n g r e c e i v e d officials record the a p p r o p r i a t e Board t h a t she to added had locate the the again grade to declined to c e r t i f y Q u i n n and n o t e d t h a t , u n d e r c u r r e n t s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n s , Q u i n n w o u l d n e e d t o t a k e and pass the P r a x i s I I e d u c a t i o n a l examination need and would also a d d i t i o n a l academic courses. a t ASU i n 2007 and was to take and pass three Hampton, f o r h e r p a r t , e n r o l l e d g i v e n t r a n s f e r c r e d i t by ASU 7 for three 2101107 courses 3 she had completed " U n i v e r s i t y of Phoenix"; ASU m a s t e r s - d e g r e e by t h e B o a r d that had been offered by the h o w e v e r , upon h e r c o m p l e t i o n o f the program, her h a v i n g f i l e d f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n as a C l a s s A (i.e., masters-level) teacher, and her having succeeded i n p a s s i n g the P r a x i s I I examination, the Board certify d e c l i n e d to "transferred i n " to ASU her, as t h e r e a f t e r r e q u i r e d to take a t ASU plaintiffs' a rationale, three and (and d i d c o m p l e t e ) complaint contained The ASU defendants requirements Hampton three was courses seven counts, to the of Board p l a i n t i f f s a s s e r t e d (a) t h a t t h e B o a r d agents breached the courses thereafter. only four contained allegations directed defendants. its the i n order to o b t a i n her c e r t i f i c a t i o n The which citing a l e g a l duty "to oversee understood to implement" state the B o a r d s h o u l d be e n j o i n e d f r o m v i o l a t i n g i t s " p r e s e n t r u l e s and and educational certification a writ should be certification; that (b) t h a t duties" regarding educator how and e n s u r e and directed administrator based to certify upon the Quinn criteria a t t h e t i m e o f h e r g r a d u a t i o n i n 2001; o f mandamus s h o u l d i s s u e t o t h e B o a r d as an for (c) t h a t defendants to T h e B o a r d d e f e n d a n t s have l a b e l e d t h o s e c o u r s e s as " c o n t i n u i n g - e d u c a t i o n " courses, although the r e c o r d , apart f r o m t h e B o a r d d e f e n d a n t s ' own c o n t e n t i o n s i n t r i a l - c o u r t f i l i n g s , does n o t s u b s t a n t i a t e t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . 3 8 2101107 compel i s s u a n c e trial the o f a c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o Q u i n n ; a n d (d) t h a t t h e c o u r t s h o u l d award monetary r e l i e f t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n form o f "due c o m p e n s a t i o n pocket expenses, past f o r mental and f u t u r e l o s [ t ] anguish, out of wages a n d r e t i r e m e n t i n c o m e , l o s t c o m p e n s a t i o n due t o l o s s o f j o b [ s ] , a n d s u f f e r i n g due t o e m b a r r a s s m e n t , l o s s o f p r e s t i g e , s t a t u s a n d m o r a l e , " a s w e l l as c o s t s a n d a t t o r n e y f e e s . members of the Board were Of t h e B o a r d d e f e n d a n t s , sued only c a p a c i t i e s , while the state education i n their the official superintendent, deputy superintendent, a n d t h e two e m p l o y e e s o f t h e B o a r d named a s d e f e n d a n t s were sued i n both their official and individual capacities. To the extent that the complaint sought monetary relief against the Board defendants i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s , the trial c o u r t ' s judgment o f d i s m i s s a l i s u n q u e s t i o n a b l y under t h e d o c t r i n e o f " s t a t e immunity." "[a] correct Under A l a b a m a l a w , s u i t a g a i n s t a S t a t e agency, o r a g a i n s t S t a t e agents i n their official c a p a c i t i e s , i s a s u i t against the State" that i s b a r r e d b y S e c t i o n 14 o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1 9 0 1 , and "State agents enjoy official dismiss official absolute immunity from s u i t i n t h e i r capacities"; accordingly, an a c t i o n against ... a State capacity at the e a r l i e s t 9 "[a] t r i a l agent opportunity." court acting must i n an Burgoon v. 2101107 Alabama S t a t e 2002). of Dep't o f Human Res., 835 So. 2d 1 3 1 , 133 ( A l a . In contrast, "state-agent the state from c i v i l i m m u n i t y " p r o t e c t s an a g e n t liability i n h i s or her i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y when t h e c o n d u c t made t h e b a s i s o f t h e c l a i m the agent imposed i s based on regulation, a upon department insofar as the agent's o r agency the statute, against "discharging by statute, rule, or duties rule, or regulation p r e s c r i b e s t h e manner f o r p e r f o r m i n g t h e d u t i e s a n d t h e S t a t e a g e n t p e r f o r m s t h e d u t i e s i n t h a t manner." 792 So. 2d 392, 405 (Ala. 2000). 4 Ex p a r t e Thus, Cranman, the issue of i n d i v i d u a l - c a p a c i t y damages l i a b i l i t y p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s a p p e a l devolves t o t h e q u e s t i o n whether t h e Board defendants acted i n furtherance The brief o f s t a t e s t a t u t e s and r e g u l a t i o n s . Board defendants that the Board c o r r e c t l y note i s vested with i n their appellate the authority under Alabama l a w t o " p r e s c r i b e r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s g o v e r n i n g t h e training schools and t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n of teachers i n the public o f t h e s t a t e , and f o r t h e acceptance o f t h e diplomas of t h e c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s o f Alabama" ( A l a . Code 1975, § 1 6 - 3 - 1 6 ( a ) ) ; i n d e e d , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s gone s o f a r as t o A l t h o u g h Cranman was a p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n , i t s r a t i o n a l e s u b s e q u e n t l y a p p l i e d b y t h e m a j o r i t y i n Ex p a r t e B u t t s , So. 2d 173 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . 4 was 775 10 2101107 s t a t e t h a t " f a l l l matters r e l a t i n g to the issuance, extension and r e n e w a l o f [ t e a c h i n g ] c e r t i f i c a t e s b a s e d upon c r e d e n t i a l s , including transcripts of applicants' institutions of higher learning training teachers, ... of records submitted i n Alabama approved [are] subject to the by f o r the rules and r e g u l a t i o n s o f t h e S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n . " A l a . Code 1975, § 16-23-2 (emphasis authority, has reference to adopted The regulations Hampton's "[t]ransferred program added). Board, that allegations c o u r s e s and/or credits requirements i n p r o f e s s i o n a l exercising with particular provide u s e d t o meet studies, that that approved instructional s u p p o r t , o r o t h e r a p p r o v e d p r o g r a m r e q u i r e m e n t s ... must have been completed at a r e g i o n a l l y accredited institution p r e p a r e s t e a c h e r s on t h e same d e g r e e l e v e l o f Ala. Admin. Code ( e f f e c t i v e September (Bd. of Educ.), initial program Alabama allegations certification demonstrate State a minimum Board GPA provide that of 3.0 Education 11 an applicant leadership completion of of The B o a r d has with p a r t i c u l a r reference in instructional "[s]atisfactory with 290-3-3-.02(2)(b) (repealed i n 2009). also promulgated regulations that Quinn's certification." 7, 2 0 0 9 ) ; a c c o r d A l a . A d m i n . Code (Bd. o f E d u c . ) , r . 290-3-3-.02(13) to r. that must for (a) a State-approved i n a l l courses approved in the program in 2101107 instructional leadership" ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) , and (b) "must meet the P r a x i s I I r e q u i r e m e n t s of the Alabama P r o s p e c t i v e T e s t i n g P r o g r a m " a f t e r 2007. r. 290-3-3-.49(3)(b) Teacher A l a . Admin. Code (Bd. o f E d u c . ) , and 2 9 0 - 3 - 3 - . 4 9 ( 4 ) . The c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e s t h a t when Hampton made c o n t a c t the Board's specialist certifying certification informed officer specialist Hampton a t ASU that had in her "signed May 2009, the and the advisor o f f on" transferred c l a s s e s t h a t were n o t a p p r o v e d by t h e B o a r d . Taken however, regulation § 16-23-2 and the p e r t i n e n t Board with together, make c l e a r t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e Board's conduct i n b a r r i n g t h e use of n o n e q u i v a l e n t t r a n s f e r c r e d i t s f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n notwithstanding the prerogative o f ASU, purposes acting separately, a c c e p t them f o r d e g r e e - g r a n t i n g p u r p o s e s . A similar applies to the i n d i v i d u a l - c a p a c i t y claims as alleges that between she was denied c e r t i f i c a t i o n to analysis t o Quinn, 2001 who and 2007, b e f o r e t h e P r a x i s I I t e s t r e q u i r e m e n t went i n t o e f f e c t , b e c a u s e she h a d no r e p o r t e d at ASU; however, because g r a d e i n one o f h e r c o u r s e s t a k e n the Board had validly adopted a r e g u l a t i o n r e q u i r i n g an a p p l i c a n t t o d e m o n s t r a t e a minimum GPA of 3.0 i n a l l c o u r s e s t a k e n i n p u r s u i t o f an instructional- l e a d e r s h i p m a s t e r s d e g r e e , and a d o p t e d a f u r t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t that s u c h an applicant pass the appropriate 12 Praxis I I exam 2101107 t h a t went i n t o e f f e c t b e f o r e Quinn c o u l d cause a r e p o r t of her m i s s i n g g r a d e t o be t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e B o a r d by ASU officials, the the complaint alleges nothing defendants "discharg[ed] rule, We cannot conclude, agent than d u t i e s i m p o s e d on or r e g u l a t i o n . " thus more Ex parte conclude, as that [them] by s t a t u t e , Cranman, 792 the So. plaintiffs 2d would 405. have us t h a t the Board defendants are not e n t i t l e d t o s t a t e - conclusions remaining in this regard also foreclose n o n m o n e t a r y f o r m s o f r e l i e f s o u g h t by t h e as t o t h e B o a r d d e f e n d a n t s . have Board requested violating that i t s "present i n j u n c t i o n or educational r u l e s and w r i t of at does n o t the time reflect should enjoined from d u t i e s " and s h o u l d be made, certify based upon of graduation her that, plaintiffs be mandamus, t o administrator certification B o a r d has the the plaintiffs To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e record at immunity. Our via Board under the the Q u i n n as an criteria for in the 2001, governing t a k e n any u n l a w f u l a c t i o n o r t h a t i t has law, the any d u t y t o i s s u e a c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o Quinn t h a t would g i v e r i s e t o a r i g h t to such a c e r t i f i c a t i o n . v. Clegg 1976) of Mfg. Co., 348 See So. S t a t e Dep't o f I n d u s . 2d 249, 251-52 Relations (Ala. Civ. ( i n j u n c t i o n w i l l not i s s u e t o r e s t r a i n the l e g a l public officer); Ex parte Privett, 13 887 So. 2d App. actions 854, 856 2101107 (Ala. 2004) ( d e n y i n g p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f mandamus b e c a u s e o f absence o f " c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e order sought") . Further, b e c a u s e t h e p l a i n t i f f s have n o t shown t h a t t h e B o a r d h a s any authority concerning the i n t e r n a l governance o f ASU i n s t i t u t i o n as t o w h i c h t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s e x p r e s s l y the Board's sole jurisdiction control provided by plaintiffs of i t s board carry of trustees l a w , s e e A l a . Code are not e n t i t l e d A l a b a m a l a w , on t h e i r to and t h a t has been p l a c e d court otherwise the as a m a t t e r o f c l a i m t h a t t h e B o a r d h a s somehow f a i l e d out a h y p o t h e t i c a l duty to undertake oversight of e d u c a t o r - c e r t i f i c a t i o n m a s t e r s - d e g r e e programs The under t h e 16-50-24 t o any r e l i e f , an divested e x c e p t as 1975, § plaintiffs' erred proceedings, in remaining contention compelling t o produce, them, over t h e i r i s that during the p l a i n t i f f s ' postjudgment on Q u i n n ' s claims. c o u r t d i d n o t e x p r e s s l y r u l e upon p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , a n d t h e r e c o r d does n o t indicate that entering i t s March electing to allow the t r i a l o p e r a t i o n o f law. c o u r t ' s March the t r i a l objection, a particular document t h a t m i g h t h a v e h a d some b e a r i n g As we have n o t e d , t h e t r i a l a t ASU. court considered 21, 2011, judgment the postjudgment t h e document i n of dismissal motion or i n t o be d e n i e d by F u r t h e r , a s we h a v e n o t e d h e r e i n , t h e t r i a l 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , judgment 14 of dismissal f o r f a i l u r e to 2101107 s t a t e a c l a i m was c o r r e c t l y e n t e r e d . that i f the t r i a l court T h e r e f o r e , we indeed erred i n compelling conclude production o f t h a t document, any s u c h e r r o r n e c e s s a r i l y d i d n o t " p r o b a b l y i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t [ ] s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f t h e " p l a i n t i f f s so as t o p e r m i t r e v e r s a l on t h a t App. ground. See R u l e 45, A l a . R. P. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Bryan, concur. 15 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

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.