Sycamore Management Group, LLC and DirecPath, LLC v. Coosa Cable Company, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:01/22/2010 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080667 Sycamore Management Group, L L C , and D i r e c P a t h , LLC v. Coosa C a b l e Appeal BOLIN, from S t . C l a i r C i r c u i t (CV-08-36300) Court Justice. Sycamore DirecPath, order Company, I n c . Group, LLC ( " D i r e c P a t h " ) , granting Company, Management permanent I n c . ("Coosa appeal LLC from ("Sycamore"), the t r i a l injunctive relief Cable"). We r e v e r s e and court's t o Coosa and remand. Cable 1080667 I. Coosa franchise Facts Cable is an to provide residents, Internet Georgia, i n c l u d i n g cable is that services, a private Maple -- cable and d i g i t a l telephone Village was which phase, Coosa Cable cable-distribution including never wiring entered plant and o t h e r into service to residents a The c o m p a n y t h a t owns a n d i t s own Maple EYC of Maple units, City. Companies complex expense, Village Coosa Cable f o r the p r o v i s i o n of Maple V i l l a g e , 2 in Pell the apartment at equipment. contract residents to i t s subscribers. During the construction EYC a f e e f o r t h e p r i v i l e g e o f s e r v i n g Village. Internet the at 911. Atlanta, i n 2004; and managed installed, City in i s located a f t e r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n was c o m p l e t e d . a s e r v i c e s , and or m u l t i - d w e l l i n g constructed ("EYC") o w n e d t h e p r o p e r t y to Pell emergency based service limited liability Village, holds programming, video apartment complexes Maple Internet including satellite that services operator provides several including corporation television, service S y c a m o r e i s an A l a b a m a manages Alabama History telecommunication telephone DirecPath and P r o c e d u r a l a full complex, and of EYC cable nor d i d Coosa C a b l e pay the residents V i l l a g e had of Maple the option to 1080667 contract on a month-to-month service individualized Internet including plans, with Coosa cable Coosa C a b l e d e a l t d i r e c t l y w i t h Village; i.e., i t billed the the r e s i d e n t s was residents nonexclusive with i n that other Sycamore cable acquired On A u g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , with DirecPath right to to the Maple whereby of entered into of were exclusive the Debbie to per and DirecPath (and Taylor, Sycamore month were aware many o f t h e M a p l e residents. the Cable services to approximately a letter d a t e d November Coosa 100 10, was the would under relationships with time, a services) Cable's business At 2007. agreement that $1,100 to a written testified $700 B o t h Sycamore i n March services Village. Sycamore, free providers. I n t e r n e t and t e l e p h o n e Maple Village have would video-programming approximately agreement. there f r o m EYC DirecPath including at Maple Village r i g h t to provide residents owner/manager receive television, individually. and/or communications Sycamore provide nonexclusive the for i t s customers at customers Coosa C a b l e ' s arrangement w i t h contract Cable s e r v i c e s , a n d p r i m a r y t e l e p h o n e s e r v i c e -- 911 s e r v i c e . Maple basis of the Coosa Village providing i t s customers at Maple V i l l a g e . 2008, 3 DirecPath informed each In of 1080667 Coosa Cable's customers 10, 2008, "Coosa television intended and for After is wires that, as o f longer service undisputed to service run December that cable DirecPath to Maple Village DirecPath's signal to customers. Cable and It no Coosa Cable's Cable's former Coosa Sycamore [would] [them]." Coosa Coosa Cable's both Cable to e l i m i n a t e t o use at Maple V i l l a g e was made a w a r e of DirecPath, alleging the letter, tortious i t sued interference w i t h b u s i n e s s and c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s and s e e k i n g i n j u n c t i v e relief to prevent further damage from Specifically, Coosa Cable pleaded Sycamore permitted to proceed Cable's were goodwill f u t u r e customers entered entered the a and such that with i t s relationships i f DirecPath their plans, with w o u l d be i r r e p a r a b l y h a r m e d . temporary a preliminary interference. restraining order pending a Coosa i t s current The and injunction, and trial and court subsequently full hearing on merits. On February 24, 2009, following a hearing, the trial c o u r t e n t e r e d a f i n a l judgment, g r a n t i n g Coosa Cable's r e q u e s t for permanent injunctive relief based on Sycamore's D i r e c P a t h ' s t o r t i o u s i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h Coosa Cable's 4 and relations 1080667 with court i t s customers at Maple V i l l a g e . that "[m]aking (1) ordered any Cable's false customers or relationships"; Cable's access or Sycamore of and misleading way statements with to Coosa with Coosa (3) "[i]nterfering Coosa Cable's personal property plant, wiring, and DirecPath from i t s customer interfering t o i t s e q u i p m e n t " ; and trial were e n j o i n e d interfering or the distribution its Sycamore DirecPath "[p]reventing misappropriating form or i n any (2) and Specifically, with in the equipment." appealed. II. Standard of Review "To be e n t i t l e d t o a p e r m a n e n t i n j u n c t i o n , a p l a i n t i f f m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e s u c c e s s on t h e m e r i t s , a substantial t h r e a t of irreparable injury i f the injunction i s not granted, that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the harm the injunction may cause the defendant, and that g r a n t i n g the i n j u n c t i o n w i l l not d i s s e r v e the p u b l i c interest." TFT, Inc. v. Warning 1 9 9 9 ) , o v e r r u l e d on Adkins, 12 injunction however, So. this 1173 of Court of ore review Inc., 751 So. 2d a n o t h e r p o i n t of law, 1238, Holiday (Ala. 2008). The de i s reviewed consideration standard 3d Sys., n o v o , TFT, Inc., 751 recognized that a has tenus we testimony apply to 5 the entry has of 1242 Isle, a So. "a of LLC trial a v. permanent 2d a t a bearing entry (Ala. 1241; court's upon the permanent 1080667 injunction." So. v. Classroomdirect.com, 2 d 6 9 2 , 701 ( A l a . 2008). v. Draphix, See a l s o K a p p a Sigma LLC, 20 09 ) ( a c c o r d i n g portions of the representations where court's of counsel regarding injunction III. and D i r e c P a t h entering a presumption trial a permanent Sycamore a permanent was of So. 3d correctness decision a because, they to based settlement on agreement issued). Discussion argue that the t r i a l injunction court erred them from preventing " [ i ] n t e r f e r i n g w i t h or m i s a p p r o p r i a t i n g Coosa Cable's property" 992 Fraternity P r i c e - W i l l i a m s , [Ms. 1 0 8 0 6 6 2 , D e c e m b e r 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 ] (Ala. in LLC say, the real property personal belongs to Sycamore and t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a t i s s u e b e l o n g i n g t o Coosa Cable fixtures ( t h e w i r i n g and r e l a t e d attached did to the r e a l not have Sycamore's permit 203 remain cite property. s t a t u t o r y or property i t to DirecPath 2d a a They on argue that contractual right nor d i d Coosa Sycamore's Cable have claim f o r the an property. of proposition tortious 6 Cable on easement to Sycamore and I n c . , 814 that interference Coosa to remain B e l l s o u t h M o b i l i t y v. C e l l u l i n k , ( A l a . 2001), establish equipment) c o n s i s t s of So. i n order to with business 1080667 relations, a plaintiff "stranger" to the argue that must e s t a b l i s h t h a t business Coosa relations. Cable Sycamore's p r o p e r t y lacked because -- each Cable tenant had on relied a lease Sycamore apartment units. right exclude to Sycamore and DirecPath remedy at law relief i n the disserves performance of the they not a tenants access argue parties to "stranger" Sycamore that from the lawful contract by to Coosa individual has i t s property. interest on Village and Sycamore f o r m o f money d a m a g e s a n d public DirecPath of Maple to is a remain a r g u e t h a t Coosa C a b l e had the a right agreement w i t h Also, third any for defendant Sycamore and S y c a m o r e was Coosa Cable's r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h the an the Last, adequate that i n j u n c t i v e prohibiting between Sycamore the and DirecPath. A which, has fixture by is being become an "an article p h y s i c a l l y annexed accessory to F a r m e r s & M e r c h a n t s Bank v. 658 which So. 657, (1935). has become a f i x t u r e In to i t and was or once a affixed part and to real to determine property, "'"(1) Actual annexation to something appurtenant thereto; 7 the (2) there but the realty, parcel of i t . " S a w y e r , 26 A l a . A p p . order chattel, 520, 522, whether must an be: realty or to Appropriateness 163 item 1080667 to the use or purpose of that p a r t of the r e a l t y with which i t i s connected; (3) The i n t e n t i o n o f t h e p a r t y making the annexation of making permanent attachment to the f r e e h o l d . This i n t e n t i o n of the p a r t y making t h e annexation i s inferred: (a) F r o m t h e n a t u r e o f t h e a r t i c l e s a n n e x e d ; (b) The r e l a t i o n of the party making the annexation; ( c ) The s t r u c t u r e a n d mode o f a n n e x a t i o n ; (d) The p u r p o s e s a n d u s e s f o r w h i c h t h e a n n e x a t i o n h a s b e e n made."'" Sharp v. Sharp, Milford 540 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 3 , 1 3 7 5 v. Tennessee R i v e r 690 (Ala. 1978), 44, 4 6 , 11 S o . 3 3 4 , 335 Coosa Cable equipment are personal "trade" I n c . v. 2003)(quoting Assessments exception argues property Materials, (2002)), quoting i n turn that (quoting C o . , 355 S o . 2 d 6 8 7 , Langston the cable fixtures Stribling, and 8 80 v. S t a t e , wiring 96 A l a . rule and related are, therefore, In LaFarge So. Co. v . 2d regarding B u i l d i n g Department of 806 A . 2 d 6 4 8 , 659 thetrade-fixtures of fixtures: "'The t r a d e f i x t u r e s e x c e p t i o n t o t h e common l a w r u l e o f f i x t u r e s d a t e s b a c k a l m o s t as f a r as t h e common l a w r u l e i t s e l f . V a n N e s s v . P a c a r d , 27 U.S. 137, 143-44, 2 P e t . 137, 7 L . E d . 3 7 4 , 376-77 ( 1 8 2 9 ) . I n 1 8 0 2 , t h i s C o u r t h e l d i n K i r w a n [ v . L a t o u r , 1 H. & J . 28 9 ( 1 8 0 2 ) ] t h a t " w h e r e a t e n a n t p u t s up a n y t h i n g f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f c a r r y i n g on h i s t r a d e , he may r e m o v e i t . " 1 H. & J . a t 2 9 1 . A t r a d e fixture 8 the 4 1 5 , 423 ( A l a . State 3 7 1 Md. 1 6 , 3 4 - 3 5 , elaborated to the general 1989) (1891)). Colonial Pipeline Court & Paper o f Coosa Cable. & Taxation, this Pulp (Ala. 1080667 c o m m o n l y i s d e f i n e d a s an i t e m a f f i x e d t o r e a l t y f o r the purpose of enabling the tenant to perform p r o p e r l y a t r a d e o r p r o f e s s i o n , w h i c h c a n be r e m o v e d w i t h o u t m a t e r i a l or permanent i n j u r y to the r e a l t y . [ R i c h a r d R. P o w e l l , P o w e l l on R e a l P r o p e r t y ] § 5 7 - 4 5 [(1969)]. The touchstone f o r the trade fixtures t e s t , l i k e t h e D u d l e y [ v . H u r s t , 67 Md. 44, 48, 8 A. 901, 902 (1887)] fixtures analysis, is intent: " [ t ] h e sole question i s , whether i t i s designed f o r p u r p o s e s o f t r a d e o r n o t . " V a n N e s s , 27 U.S. a t 1 4 6 , 7 L . E d . a t 3 7 8 . See a l s o D u d l e y , 67 Md. a t 48, 8 A. a t 902 ( s t a t i n g t h a t of the prongs of the f i x t u r e s test, "the most important is the question of i n t e n t i o n " ) . When t h e p r o p e r i n t e n t i s f o u n d , "[n]o m a t t e r how s t r o n g l y [ t h e f i x t u r e s a r e ] a t t a c h e d t o t h e s o i l o r i m b e d d e d i n i t , t h e y a r e t r e a t e d as p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , a n d as s u c h s u b j e c t t o r e m o v a l b y t h e p e r s o n e r e c t i n g t h e m . " N. C e n t . Ry. Co. v . The C a n t o n Co., 30 Md. 3 4 7 , 352 (1869).'" In other realty trade by or words, a a tenant trade fixture f o r purposes the property providing years. of an article c a r r y i n g on annexed the to tenant's business. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , we that is wires but and not cable Coosa distribution order to Coosa Cable's equipment trade services Cable video lines and were fixtures fixtures. to and and its Cable to has real been Pell City for own expense equipment at Maple V i l l a g e data equipment 9 at in DirecPath attached Coosa residents installed plant, wiring, provide a g r e e w i t h Sycamore and s e r v i c e s to were the installed 30 the in residents. inside the 1080667 walls of the apartment complex w i r i n g b e c a m e an i n t e g r a l part means to for the residents during construction. o f t h e p r e m i s e s and p r o v i d e d receive video services. Smith, p r e s i d e n t of Coosa Cable, t e s t i f i e d at t r i a l Coosa Cable i n s t a l l e d intended t o remove t o remove t h e w i r i n g ceiling and material injury the w i r i n g i t because walls at Maple each without apartment to the property. a huge Jeff when he never undertaking tearing unit, a that, Village, i t w o u l d be at Maple V i l l a g e in The out the i . e . , without Coosa C a b l e ' s argument that t h e w i r e s and equipment a r e " t r a d e " f i x t u r e s does n o t a p p l y i n this fact situation landlord-tenant such Cable Charlottesville Cir. relationship a relationship Coosa because with Coosa with Sycamore's cites Cable does Sycamore, not nor EYC. TV Cable Q u a l i t y C a b l e O p e r a t i n g Co., 22 F . 3 d 1994), i n support of i t s p o s i t i o n that a d i d i t have predecessor, Multi-Channel have Co. 546 v. (4th i t is entitled to an i n j u n c t i o n p r e v e n t i n g D i r e c P a t h f r o m s e r v i n g C o o s a C a b l e ' s customers at Maple cable-television enjoining residential a Village. provider, competing apartment In M u l t i - C h a n n e l , sought a preliminary cable provider complexes from 10 Adelphia, and the operating a injunction owners under of cable- 1080667 provider court agreements granted. because payments giving by excluded Multi-Channel, i t involved Multi-Channel that however, a preliminary involved cable Adelphia, a Virginia statute 55-248.13:2." providers to ... access [cable] F.3d to at 553 landlords trial Furthermore, that "proscribed ' i n exchange services.' n.5. the is distinguishable injunction. 22 tenants which Alabama Va. has for Code no § such statute. Sycamore and D i r e c P a t h a statutory property or contractual n o r an e a s e m e n t property. ( O r d i n a n c e No. r i g h t t o use the c i t y ' s the occupy did ordinance private that Cable property. Coosa Cable i n s t a l l the wires 1 remain not Sycamore's on Sycamore's with had EYC Coosa by Coosa Cable the Cable the right to Cable or Sycamore t o p r o v i d e cable easement Jeff to that equipment, Coosa Village. an adopted f o r i t scable I t i s undisputed at Maple never grant neither on i t to remain rights-of-way property. to tenants Coosa Village to allow to 87-793), which allows does not have a c o n t r a c t services right C o o s a C a b l e o p e r a t e s u n d e r an o r d i n a n c e Pell City but argue t h a t Coosa C a b l e has Smith be on testified the Maple 1 d o e s n o t a r g u e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m EYC and equipment had v e s t e d Coosa C a b l e w i t h 11 to an 1080667 B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e r e was e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d the that wires real property and related equipment fixtures to the and t h a t t h e y t h e r e f o r e b e l o n g e d t o t h e owner o f t h e real property, Sycamore, had to enter the provide were right cable and, as t h e p r o p e r t y into i t s contract s e r v i c e s to the tenants owner, with at Maple Sycamore DirecPath to Village. Conclusion Sycamore, by v i r t u e of i t s ownership of Maple V i l l a g e the e x i s t i n g c h a t t e l and f i x t u r e s , with DirecPath an existing contract, to and right. relief, Coosa Cable had by s t a t u t e , o r by easement DirecPath to contract so l o n g as t h a t c o n t r a c t d i d n o t i n t e r f e r e the r e s i d e n t s property. had the a b i l i t y of Maple could not Because Coosa the judgment cause i s remanded Village, be existing to provide and, enjoined Cable no court cable using i s not e n t i t l e d of the t r i a l right therefore, from to and with by service Sycamore Sycamore's injunctive i s reversed, and f o r further proceedings consistent with the this opinion. R E V E R S E D AND REMANDED. irrevocable license. Multi-Channel, 22 F . 3 d 5 4 6 , i s a l s o d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on t h i s g r o u n d b e c a u s e A d e l p h i a h a d a l l e g e d t h a t i t h a d an e a s e m e n t o r an i r r e v o c a b l e l i c e n s e . 12 1080667 Cobb, and C . J . , and Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . Murdock, J . , concurs i n the 13 result. Smith, Parker, 1080667 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e (concurring i n the r e s u l t ) . None o f t h e c o n t r a c t s C o o s a C a b l e Company, I n c . , h a d w i t h its customers initiation Under a t Maple Village extended beyond to those customers by D i r e c P a t h , LLC. presented here, I concur of s e r v i c e the facts the date i n the r e s u l t . I also write separately to address the appellate of review of injunctive judgments reviewed de n o v o , " in previous (citing (Ala. continue many t h e main cases by opinion this I remain to a r t i c u l a t e repeats a statement Court. this 3d rationale , So. singular s e e how 3d depend upon factual ore tenus ( A l a . 2009) and made at of Court can appellate of the fact findings evidence. that made b y a See K a p p a Sigma [Ms. 1 0 8 0 6 6 2 , D e c . 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 ] (Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e concurring i n the Dothan v. E i g h t y - F o u r West, this standard i n light upon i n part to injunctions injunctions court based unable F r a t e r n i t y v. P r i c e - W i l l i a m s , So. permanent " [ t ] h e e n t r y of a permanent i n j u n c t i o n i s f o r permanent such trial denying T F T , I n c . v . W a r n i n g S y s . , I n c . , 751 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 8 , 1 2 4 2 1999)). review or standard relief. In s t a t i n g t h a t some granting of result); City of I n c . , 8 7 1 S o . 2 d 5 4 , 60 ( A l a . C i v . 14 1080667 App. 2003) for (Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y rehearing) (tracing permanent-injunction evidence noting was other the cases source to a of case on application the de novo in which rule ore not m a t e r i a l to the t r i a l court's cases to the t r i a l affording deference tenus judgment was Holiday Isle, which presented ore LLC v. A d k i n s , disavowed tenus (cited with 12 S o . 3 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 6 the a r t i c u l a t i o n of a uniform and court's judgment g r a n t i n g or denying permanent i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f evidence in where approval in ( A l a . 2008), rule o f de novo review, a l b e i t i n a case i n v o l v i n g a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n ) ) . The m a i n o p i n i o n i s c o r r e c t i n i t s s u b s e q u e n t o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t "'a trial bearing a c o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of ore tenus upon permanent the standard injunction.'" Classroomdirect.com, (Ala. 2008)). first instance novo." of review that So. LLC v. D r a p h i x , Consequently, "a we testimony apply 3d to the entry of at (quoting L L C , 992 S o . 2 d 6 9 2 , i t i s inaccurate to state permanent Some a r e ; some a r e n o t . 15 has a injunction 701 i n the i s reviewed de

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.