Collier v. Harland Clarke Corp

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This court stayed this action pending a decision of the Eleventh Circuit in Savage v. Secure First Credit Union. In light of the Eleventh Circuit's opinion the stay is LIFTED, and defendant's motion to dismiss i s DENIED to the extent Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 permits alternative pleading. However the parties should take note of this court's opinion in Jones v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2:14-cv-1640-WMA, August 12, 2016. The undersigned to whom this case is assigned does not employ the "Uniform Initial Order" found on the court's website; see within for further instruction. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 8/12/16. (SAC )(SAC, )

FILED
2016 Aug-12 PM 02:50
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT COLLIER JR.,

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Plaintiff,
v.
HARLAND CLARKE CORP.,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:15-CV-1006-WMA

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This

court

stayed

the

above-entitled

decision of the Eleventh Circuit

action

pending

a

in Savage v. Secure First

Credit Union, Case No. 15-12704 (11th Cir.).

On May 25, 2016,

the

in

Eleventh

Circuit

issued

an

Opinion

Savage

and

subsequently on August 4, 2016 issued its mandate.
In light of the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion plaintiff’s
motion

to

lift

stay

is

GRANTED,

the

stay

is

LIFTED,

and

defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED to the extent Federal
Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

8

permits

alternative

pleading.

However, the parties should take note of this court’s opinion in
Jones v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2:14-cv-1640-WMA, August 12,
2016, and recognize that defendants are permitted to raise at
summary judgment

their argument that “but-for” causation is

incompatible with simultaneous age, disability, and retaliation
claims.

The parties are hereby reminded that the case is governed
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including local rule
variations. The parties should pay particular attention to Fed.
R. Civ. Proc. 26 and 16 and should with their initial report
notify the court if the case should be evaluated for proceeding
upon any of the tracks provided by this court's Alternative
Dispute Resolution Plan. THE UNDERSIGNED TO WHOM THIS CASE IS
ASSIGNED DOES NOT EMPLOY THE “UNIFORM INITIAL ORDER” FOUND ON
THE COURT’S WEBSITE.
DONE this 12th day of August, 2015.

_____________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE