Court Denies City’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Review Denial of Summary Judgment Motion
Ex parte City of Gadsden
In this case, police officers and firemen (“the Plaintiffs”) sued the City of Gadsden (“the City”) alleging they had been erroneously denied certain benefits. The Plaintiffs alleged in Count I of the Complaint, among other things, that they had an employment contract with the City and sought refunds of certain pension payments, damages for the City’s alleged failure to pay into Social Security on their behalf along with the provision of medical coverage benefits and equitable relief. Count II of the Complaint related solely to claims asserted by one of the individual plaintiffs.
The trial court entered a summary judgment in the City’s favor on Count II. However, the trial court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment on Count I, and the City petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus.
The Court denied the City’s petition. While there was no main opinion, Justice Shaw concurred specially and explained
t
he threshold issue on appeal was whether the judgment on Count II foreclosed litigation of Count I. However, Justice Shaw explained that even if the City demonstrated this fact, Alabama appellate courts will not review by a petition of writ of mandamus the merits of an order denying a motion for a summary judgment unless certain exceptions outlined in
Ex parte U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n
apply. 148 So. 3d 1060, 1064 (Ala. 2014). Because none of these exceptions applied, mandamus was not an appropriate means of review.
