Kendrick v. Earl's Inc.

Decision Date16 March 2007
Docket Number2050717.
Citation963 So.2d 676
PartiesArluster W. KENDRICK v. EARL'S INCORPORATED et al.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

Charles H. Volz III, Montgomery, for appellant.

Glenn D. Zimmerman, Montgomery, for appellees.

THOMAS, Judge.

Arluster W. Kendrick ("the employee") sued Earl's Incorporated ("the employer"), Earl H. Singleton, Robin E. Singleton, and Lynn Bush, seeking workers' compensation benefits from the employer; alleging retaliatory discharge by the employer, Earl H. Singleton, and Robin E. Singleton; and alleging that the employer, Robin E. Singleton, and Lynn Bush had deceived and defrauded him by making certain misrepresentations regarding the employer's liability for workers' compensation benefits and by promising that the employer would pay for his medical expenses in order to induce him to enter into a settlement with the employer.

The employer moved to dismiss the employee's action; it appended certain exhibits to its motion. On September 26, 2005, the trial court entered an order indicating that it intended to treat the motion as a motion for a summary judgment, see Rule 12(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., and allowing the parties 21 days to conduct discovery and 6 weeks to submit additional matters to be considered with the motion. On October 5, 2005, the employer filed a motion for a summary judgment with additional materials. The trial court then entered an order setting the summary-judgment motion for a hearing on October 25, 2005. The employee requested a continuance of the October 25 hearing, noting that the trial court had originally permitted the parties until November 7, 2005, to submit additional materials in support of or in opposition to the motion for a summary judgment, without the necessity of a hearing. The trial court then entered an order indicating that the employee's requested continuance was granted and that the motion for a summary judgment would be submitted "on the pleadings" on November 7, 2005. The employee moved the trial judge to recuse himself on November 4, 2005. The employee submitted his response in opposition to the summary-judgment motion and evidentiary materials on November 7, 2005.

Although the trial court had indicated that it would submit the motion for a summary judgment "on the pleadings" on November 7, 2005, the case-action-summary sheet indicates that the trial court held some sort of hearing on that date. The entry on November 7, 2005, indicates that the employer (and perhaps the other defendants) were in court with counsel, that the employee and his counsel were not present, and that the employee filed additional materials. On November 15, 2005, the trial judge granted the employee's motion to recuse, and the case was reassigned to another judge.

On November 28, 2005, the employer moved for a dismissal for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., arguing that the employee's alleged failure to appear at the summary-judgment hearing and his alleged failure to timely respond to the summary-judgment motion entitled the employer to a dismissal of the case. The trial court set the motion for a hearing on February 15, 2006. When the employee and his counsel failed to appear on that date, the trial court dismissed the action; however, on the employee's motion, the trial court reinstated the action and reset the hearing on the pending summary-judgment motion a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Eight Mile Auto Sales, Inc. v. Fair
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • June 5, 2009
    ...regarding this court's jurisdiction, we may take notice of the lack of appellate jurisdiction ex mero motu. Kendrick v. Earl's Inc., 963 So.2d 676, 678 (Ala.Civ. App.2007); see also Rule 2(a)(1), Ala. R.App. P. ("An appeal shall be dismissed if the notice of appeal was not timely filed to i......
  • Kendrick v. Earl's Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • December 14, 2007
    ...THOMAS, Judge. This is the second time this action has been before the court for resolution. See Kendrick v. Earl's Incorporated, 963 So.2d 676 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) ("Kendrick I"). As we explained in Kendrick "Arluster W. Kendrick ('the employee') sued1 Earl's Incorporated ('the employer'), E......
  • Scott v. State ex rel. Dix
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • March 16, 2007

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT