Noles v. Guntersville, Alabama, The City of

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION, as set out. Signed by Judge Robert B Propst on 4/24/13. (CTS, )

FILED
2013 Apr-24 PM 12:39
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION

VESTA NOLES
Plaintiff,
v.

CV 4:12-3840-RBP

CITY OF GUNTERSVILLE,
ALABAMA
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This cause comes on to be further considered and heard on the Motion to Dismiss filed by
the defendant on November 14, 2012 which has been converted to a motion for summary
judgment by the court. After also considering the briefs and evidence filed by the parties in
response to the court’s order dated March 5, 2013, which was entered in response to plaintiff’s
Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate Judgment filed on February 19, 2013, the court has
determined to reinstate its previously filed memorandum opinion and order filed on January 23,
2013. This decision comes after a further consideration of both the undisputed and arguably
disputed evidence and the cases cited in this court’s previous memorandum opinion and the cases
cited by the parties.
There may be other issues regarding even the appropriateness of the court’s consideration
of plaintiff’s Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate Judgment and also other issues with reference to
the merits of plaintiff’s case not discussed by the court. The evidence, in general, is
overwhelming. The court notes that Ordinance No. 825, par. 3, specifically states that “No one
shall be permitted to sell produce except that which is produced or raised on his/her farm.”

(Emphasis added). The plaintiff has acknowledged that he sold produce grown on his brother’s
property and the property of the Lattas. Further, his brother’s land is in Blount, not Marshall,
County. The Growers Permit is for Marshall County, and says “Buy Local.” The court has not
attempted to list all violations of the ordinance.1
This the 24th day of April, 2013.

ROBERT B. PROPST
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

As a matter of interest see plaintiff’s wife’s statement. The plaintiff was notified that the operators of the
market were concerned about his place of obtaining produce. He failed to cooperate with them after such notice.
2

3