Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Trammel et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting 50 Motion to Dismiss. Count III of the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Any claims asserted in this action against defendant Prowler Supply, Inc., f/k/a Lynn Strickland Sales & Services, Inc. are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 1/10/2017. (nah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST
COMPANY, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES P. TRAMMEL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION 16-0033-WS-M

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Count III of the
Complaint and Dismiss Prowler Supply, Inc. as Party Defendant (doc. 50) pursuant to Rule
41(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. By Order (doc. 51) entered on December 28, 2016, the undersigned
afforded all affected parties an opportunity to be heard. The deadline for responses having
expired, the Rule 41(a)(2) Motion is now properly taken under submission.
The purpose of plaintiff’s Motion is to tie up the last two loose ends in this litigation.
After all, the Court previously entered an Order (doc. 47) and Judgment (doc. 48) resolving the
lion’s share of the claims presented by awarding judgment in favor of plaintiff and against
defendants James P. Trammel and CTT Properties, LLC, in the amount of $380,087.34. Those
rulings left unresolved Count III, a claim for rents brought by plaintiff against defendant Tire
Centers, LLC, and any claims that plaintiff may have outstanding against defendant Prowler
Supply, Inc. In the Motion to Dismiss, plaintiff seeks the voluntary dismissal without prejudice
of both Count III against Tire Centers and any residual claims against Prowler Supply.
Despite a reasonable opportunity to be heard, no party filed a response in opposition to
the Motion to Dismiss. Nonetheless, Tire Centers did file a Response (doc. 52) in which it asks
that this Court, as a condition of granting dismissal, expressly retain jurisdiction over this matter
indefinitely. As grounds for this request, Tire Centers points to an Order (doc. 28) dated April 5,
2016, in which the Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Rents (doc. 20) and directed
Tire Centers to make future rent payments directly to BB&T. Tire Centers reasons that retention
of jurisdiction is “necessary to allow the Court to interpret, modify or enforce that Order to

address future developments related to the rental payment obligations of TCi in its continued
leasing of the premises at issue.” (Doc. 52, at 2.) The Court finds that imposing such a
condition on the voluntary dismissal requested by BB&T is inappropriate. After all, BB&T has
not requested – and this Court is not entering – a final judgment imposing a permanent injunction
on Tire Centers vis a vis its rent payment obligations. BB&T has not sought entry of a final
judgment against Tire Centers, but rather asks to have its lone claim against Tire Centers (Count
III, in which the relief sought is that “this Court order Tire Centers to pay all future rents, income
and profits from the Property directly to BB&T” (doc. 1, at 11)) dismissed without prejudice.
Under the circumstances, it would make little sense to retain jurisdiction over this terminated
case to enforce an interlocutory order that is not being reduced to judgment.1
For all of the foregoing reasons, in the interest of justice, the Court grants Plaintiff’s
Motion to Dismiss Count III of the Complaint and Dismiss Prowler Supply, Inc. as a Party
Defendant (doc. 50), pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. Count III of the Complaint is
dismissed without prejudice, with each of plaintiff and defendant Tire Centers, LLC, to bear its
own costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees on that cause of action. Likewise, any claims asserted
in this action against defendant Prowler Supply, Inc., f/k/a Lynn Strickland Sales & Services,
Inc. are dismissed without prejudice, each party to bear its own costs, expenses and attorney’s
fees on that cause of action.
Because this Order and the accompanying Final Judgment resolve all issues joined in this
action as to all parties, the Clerk’s Office is directed to close this file for statistical and
administrative purposes.
DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 2017.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

Moreover, it bears emphasis that the April 5 Order was unopposed; indeed, three
of the four defendants expressly stated they had no objection. The fourth (Tire Centers) took no
position on the matter, a stance which the April 5 Order observed was “eminently sensible. After
all, Tire Centers is the lessee at 1155 Telegraph Road, with a contractual obligation to pay rents
on a regular basis, so it is of course willing to direct those rent payments wherever the Court
directs.” (Doc. 28, at 2.) At no time following entry of the April 5 Order has any party or nonparty objected, identified any issues or concerns with the form and contents of that order, or
otherwise intimated any latent problems with its terms or enforcement.

-2-