Adams et al v. Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C.

Filing 720

JUDGMENT in favor of Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C. against Robert Adams; in favor of Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C. against Franklin Thomas; in favor of Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C. against Jerome Pettibone; in favor of Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C. against Ron Law; in favor o f Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C. against Rahman K. Pratt; in favor of Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C. against Frederick Williams; in favor of Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C. against Tesha Hollis; in favor of Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C. against Larry J. Laffiette; in favor of Austa l, U.S.A., L.L.C. against Frederick A. Carter, Sr; in favor of Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C. against Sidney Hedgeman;in favor of Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C. against Beverly Thomas; in favor of Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C. against Carlos Johnson, Earaton Adams, Myron Barnes; in favor of Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C. against Charles L. Stills, III, George Wells, Jermaine Roberson, Jermel Matthews and dismissing claims with prejudice.. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 2/16/12. (cmj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EARATON ADAMS, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
AUSTAL USA, LLC,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION 08-00155-KD-N

JUDGMENT
In accordance with the Order issued on May 6, 2011 (Doc. 369), finding for the
Defendant Austal, USA, LLC as to Plaintiff Robert Adams’ claims, it is ORDERED,
ADJUDGED and DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Austal USA,
LLC and against Plaintiff Robert Adams.

Thus, Plaintiff Robert Adams’ claims against

Defendant Austal, USA, LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
In accordance with the Order issued on May 26, 2011 (Doc. 376), finding for the
Defendant Austal, USA, LLC as to Plaintiff Franklin Thomas’ claims, it is ORDERED,
ADJUDGED and DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Austal USA,
LLC and against Plaintiff Franklin Thomas. Thus, Plaintiff Franklin Thomas’ claims against
Defendant Austal, USA, LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
In accordance with the Order issued on May 31, 2011 (Doc. 378), finding for the
Defendant Austal, USA, LLC as to Plaintiff Jerome Pettibone’s claims, it is ORDERED,
ADJUDGED and DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Austal USA,
LLC and against Plaintiff Jerome Pettibone. Thus, Plaintiff Jerome Pettibone’s claims against
1

Defendant Austal, USA, LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
In accordance with the Order issued on May 31, 2011 (Doc. 379), finding for the
Defendant Austal, USA, LLC as to Plaintiff Ron Law’s claims, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED
and DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Austal USA, LLC and
against Plaintiff Ron Law. Thus, Plaintiff Ron Law’s claims against Defendant Austal, USA,
LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
In accordance with the Order issued on July 27, 2011 (Doc. 397), finding for the
Defendant Austal, USA, LLC as to Plaintiff Rahman K. Pratt’s claims, it is ORDERED,
ADJUDGED and DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Austal USA,
LLC and against Plaintiff Rahman K. Pratt. Thus, Plaintiff Rahman K. Pratt’s claims against
Defendant Austal, USA, LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
In accordance with the Order issued on September 6, 2011 (Doc. 435), finding for the
Defendant Austal, USA, LLC as to Plaintiff Frederick Williams’ claims, it is ORDERED,
ADJUDGED and DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Austal USA,
LLC and against Plaintiff Frederick Williams. Thus, Plaintiff Frederick Williams’ claims against
Defendant Austal, USA, LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
In accordance with the Order issued on September 22, 2011 (Doc. 488), finding for the
Defendant Austal, USA, LLC as to Plaintiff Tesha Hollis’ claims, it is ORDERED,
ADJUDGED and DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Austal USA,
LLC and against Plaintiff Tesha Hollis. Thus, Plaintiff Tesha Hollis’ claims against Defendant
Austal, USA, LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2

In accordance with the Order issued on October 13, 2011 (Doc. 513), finding for the
Defendant Austal, USA, LLC as to Plaintiff Larry J. Laffiette’s claims, it is ORDERED,
ADJUDGED and DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Austal USA,
LLC and against Plaintiff Larry J. Laffiette. Thus, Plaintiff Larry J. Laffiette’s claims against
Defendant Austal, USA, LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
In accordance with the verdict of the jury entered on October 5, 2011 (Doc. 515), finding
for the Defendant Austal, USA, LLC as to the claims asserted by Frederick A. Carter, Sr. and
Sidney Hedgeman, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that JUDGMENT is
entered in favor of Defendant Austal USA, LLC and against Plaintiffs Frederick A. Carter, Sr.
and Sidney Hedgeman. Thus, the claims asserted by Plaintiffs Frederick A. Carter, Sr. and
Sidney Hedgeman against Defendant Austal, USA, LLC are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
In accordance with the verdict of the jury entered on January 13, 2012 (Doc. 706),
finding for the Defendant Austal, USA, LLC as to Plaintiff Beverly Thomas’ claims, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant
Austal USA, LLC and against Plaintiff Beverly Thomas. Thus, Plaintiff Beverly Thomas’ claims
against Defendant Austal, USA, LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
In accordance with the verdicts of the jury entered on October 5, 2011 (Doc. 515) and
January 25, 2012 (Doc. 707), finding for the Defendant Austal, USA, LLC as to the claims
asserted by Earaton Adams, Myron Barnes and Carlos Johnson, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED
and DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Austal USA, LLC and
against Plaintiffs Earaton Adams, Myron Barnes and Carlos Johnson. Thus, the claims asserted
3

by Earaton Adams, Myron Barnes and Carlos Johnson against Defendant Austal, USA, LLC are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
In accordance with the verdict of the jury entered on January 25, 2012 (Doc. 707),
finding for the Defendant Austal, USA, LLC as to the claims asserted by Charles L. Stills, III,
Jermel Matthews, Jermaine Roberson and George Wells, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and
DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Austal USA, LLC and against
Plaintiffs Charles L. Stills, III, Jermel Matthews, Jermaine Roberson and George Wells. Thus,
the claims asserted by Charles L. Stills, III, Jermel Matthews, Jermaine Roberson and George
Wells against Defendant Austal, USA, LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
DONE and ORDERED this the 16th day of February 2012.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4