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, )

Download PDF
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

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?