Sanders v. University of Alabama in Birmingham et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge James H Hancock on 8/5/2015. (JLC)
2015 Aug-05 PM 12:02
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
STACY LYNN SANDERS,
DR. JAMIE CANNON, et al.,
The court has before it two motions to dismiss. The first is the June 18, 2015
Motion (Doc. #3) to Dismiss filed by Defendant Dr. Jamie Cannon. On June 23,
2015, the court entered an order explaining why the Motion (Doc. #3) to Dismiss was
due to be granted, and gave Plaintiff until July 28, 2015 to show cause why it should
not. (See Doc. # 6.)
The second motion was filed on June 23, 2015 Motion (Doc. #7) to Dismiss
filed by the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama (incorrectly named in the
complaint as the University of Alabama in Birmingham and as University of Alabama
Hospital). On June 25, 2015, the court entered an order explaining why this Motion
(Doc. #7) was due to be granted, and again gave Plaintiff until July 28, 2015 to show
cause why it should not. (See Doc. # 8.)
On July 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Answer (Doc. #9) to the Show Cause order,
addressing both Motions to Dismiss.1 After a thorough examination of the arguments
contained in Plaintiff’s Answer, the court in unpersuaded in its original analysis that
the Motions to Dismiss are due to be granted. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the
court’s June 23, 2015 and June 25, 2015 orders (Docs. # 6 & 8), as well as the reasons
articulated by Defendants in their Motions to Dismiss (Docs. # 3 & 7), the court
intends to grant both motions to dismiss.
A separate order will be entered.
DONE this the
day of August, 2015.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Contained within the Answer was an argument that the case should be remanded. If the
court were to construe the Answer as a motion to remand, it would be DENIED. The case is
properly before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. (See Doc. #1.)
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?