Weatherly et al v. Alabama State University
ORDER DENYING without prejudice 279 MOTION for return of appeal bond and 280 MOTION Entry of Satisfaction of Judgment, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 1/23/14. (djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CYNTHIA WILLIAMS, and LYDIA
ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Civil Action No. 2:10CV192-WHA
This cause is before the court on Alabama State University=s (AASU@) Motion for Return
of Appeal Bond (Doc. #279), and Motion for Entry of Satisfaction of Judgment (Doc. #280).
As a result of the trial of their claims in this case, Plaintiff Weatherly was awarded
$309,453.06; Plaintiff Williams was awarded $392,648.23; and Plaintiff Burkhalter was awarded
$376,509.65. (Doc. #173). All three Plaintiffs were further awarded post-judgment interest,
attorneys fees, and costs. Plaintiffs Burkhalter and Williams have been paid the full amounts
due them. (Doc. #280-6, 280-7).
In December 2013, however, the law firm of Lloyd, Gray,
Whitehead & Monroe, P.C., which represents ASU, was served with a Process of Garnishment
seeking garnishment of $31,085.28 of Plaintiff Weatherly=s judgment in this case. (Doc.
#280-1). The garnishment was based on a December 1, 2011 judgment in favor of Alabama
State University against Plaintiff Weatherly in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County,
Alabama. (Doc. #284-2). Plaintiff Weatherly, therefore, has been paid only a portion of the
amount due her in this case, with the remainder being paid to the Circuit Court of Montgomery
Plaintiffs Burkhalter and Williams do not oppose ASU=s motions. Plaintiff Weatherly,
however, has opposed the motions, arguing that judgment has not been satisfied as to her,
because some of the amount awarded to her in this case was not paid to her, but was instead
improperly interpled into state court. Weatherly=s counsel in this case states in her objection to
ASU=s motions that Weatherly is representing herself in the garnishment action, and that she is
seeking relief in Circuit Court to contest the garnishment. Counsel representing Weatherly in
this case also argues in brief that this court should order ASU to tender the remainder of her
judgment, plus interest.
In response, ASU states that the relief Weatherly requests is improper, and would
prejudice it because it would have to incur costs to remove the funds from the Circuit Court of
Montgomery, County. ASU does not, however, demonstrate prejudice which would result from
allowing the funds to remain in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County until that court has
resolved Weatherly=s objections to the garnishment and disbursed the funds paid into the court.
The garnishment proceedings have only been pending for a short time.
Therefore, it appears to
this court that the most prudent course of action is to deny ASU=s motions at this time, to allow
the Circuit Court of Montgomery County to conclude that case. ASU can of course re-file its
motions when the garnishment proceedings have concluded, and is not precluded from seeking
relief should some demonstrated prejudice arise in the future.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Return of Appeal Bond (Doc.
#279) and Motion for Entry of Satisfaction of Judgment (Doc. #280) are DENIED without
prejudice to being re-filed at a later date.
DONE this 23rd day of January, 2014.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?