Motion to Dismiss

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JOHN DILLARD, ET AL, 

PLAINTIFFS 

VS. CIVIL ACTION #85-T-1332-N 

CRENSHAW COUNTY, ALABAMA, 

ET AL, 

DEFENDANTS. 

MOTTON 
  

Come now the Defendants, PICKENS COUNTY, ALABAMA; WILLIAM H. 

LANG, JR., in his official capacity as Probate Court; JAMES E. 

FLOYD, in his official capacity as Circuit Clerk; ana LOUIE C. 

COLEMAN, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Pickens County, 

and move the Court as follows: 

l. To dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. 

2. To dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted against the said Defendants, 

separately and severally. 

3. To dismiss the action because of lack of jurisdiction 

over the subject matter. 

4. To dismiss the action because of lack of jurisdiction 

over the person. 

54 To dismiss the action because of lack of jurisdiction 

rover the said defendants, separately and severally, and each of 

them. 

6. To dismiss the action because of insufficiency of 

service and process. 

 



  

PAGE TWO 

7. To dismiss the action because of improper venue. 

8. To dismiss the action because of improper venue in that 

the said defendants reside in the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Alabama and the said Pickens County, 

Alabama, is in the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Alabama. 

9. To dismiss the action because the process is 

insufficient. 

10. To dismiss the action because the service of process on 

the ‘defendants, separately and severally, and each of them is 

insufficient. 

11. To dismiss the action because of misjoinder of parties 

defendant. 

12. To dismiss the action because of misjoinder of claims 

and remedies against multiple defendants. 

13. To dismiss the action because of forum nonconveniens. 

14. To dismiss the action because the amended complaint 

failed to state a proper grounds for a class action suit. 

15. To dismiss the action because the amended complaint does 

not allege the prerequisites for a class action suit. 

l6. To dismiss the action because the named plaintiffs 

cannot fairly and adequately protect the interest of the alleged 

class. 

17. To dismiss the action because the named plaintiffs’ 

claims are not typical of a claim of the class. 

18. To dismiss the action because the amended complaint does 

 



PAGE THREE 
  

not allege questions of law or fact common to the class and is 

therefore an improper class action suit. 

19. To dismiss the action because of lack of commonality. 

20. To dismiss the action because the amended complaint does 

ok allege claims that are typical of the claims of the class. 

21. To dismiss the action because the amended complaint does 

not allege claims against the said defendants herein that are 

typical of claims against the other defendants. 

22. To dismiss the action because the amended complaint 

fails to allege facts showing and averring that a class action in 

this case is superior to other available methods for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of this matter. 

23, To dismiss the action because the named plaintiffs 

cannot fairly and adequately protect the interest of the alleged 

class and this impossibility shows from the face of the amended 

complaint. | 

24. To dismiss the action because the amended complaint does 

not allege facts to show that there are questions of law or fact 

common to members of a class that predominate over other 

questions affecting only individual members. 

25. To dismiss the action because the said action as a 

class action suit would create the risk of inconsistent or 

varying adjudications with regard to the class. 

26. To dismiss the action because the representative 

parties will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of 

the class.  



  

PAGE FOUR 
  

27. To dismiss the action because the amended complaint does 

not comply with Rule 23(b)(2). 

28. To dismiss the action because the allegations against 

the said defendants in the said amended complaint are res 

judicata. 

29. To dismiss the action because the allegations in the 

amended complaint against said defendants have been previously 

adjudicated and said plaintiffs cannot proceed because of 

collateral estoppel. 

30. To dismiss the action because said action as to these 

said defendants is res judicata. 

3]. In the event that motion numbers 1 through 30 are 

denied, then to require and order as to these Defendants, the 

actions to be severed and to be transferred to the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. 

N17 
W. O. KIRK, 'JR., ATTORNEY FOR 

THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS. 

  

SAID DEFENDANTS REQUEST A HEARING ON THIS SAID MOTION. 

Ww. . KIRK, JR., ATTORNEY FOR THE 

ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS. 

  

W. O. KIRK, JR. 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 

Pe Ou BOX A-D CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
CARROLLTON, AL. 35447 

: - This is to certify that | have this day served a 

ig (208). 367-5125 copy of the above and foregoing pleading on 

all attorneys of record in this case by derosit- 

ing a copy of same in the Uril2c States mail 

postage prepaid, and propery addressed. 
vk 

This_Z2 = day of. tt LY 

—2 hy se 
Attorney for 

Detends nts