Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Young v. City of Mobile

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

August 7, 2014

JERONE YOUNG, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF MOBILE, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant City of Mobile's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 63-65), Plaintiff Jerone Young's Response (Doc. 68), and Defendant's Reply (Doc. 73).

I. Factual Background[1]

From October 2011 to the present, Plaintiff Jerone Young ("Young") has been a "classified merit system employee" of the Police Department of Defendant City of Mobile ("the City"). (Doc. 1 at 4).

On November 10, 2011, Young was demoted and suspended from the Police Department. (Doc. 1 at 4). On Nov. 27, 2013, Young filed this Title VII suit against the City. (Doc. 64 at 1). On December 27, 2013, Young filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition with the bankruptcy court in this district. Id. at 2. The petition required Young to list all the lawsuits to which he is or was a party within one year immediately preceding the filing of the petition. Id. In his petition he included a potential claim against BP but omitted this suit. Id. He also swore under oath and affirmed six times that he had reviewed the information and that it was true and correct. Id. While being deposed by the City on May 30, 2014, Young was presented with a copy of his bankruptcy petition and was questioned about the omission of this suit from that petition. Id. After his deposition, on that same day, Young amended the asset schedules in his bankruptcy to include this suit. (Doc. 64 at 3).

II. Standard of Review

"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a) (Dec. 2010). Rule 56(c) provides as follows:

(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
(2) Objection That a Fact Is Not Supported by Admissible Evidence. A party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.
(3) Materials Not Cited. The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.
(4) Affidavits or Declarations. An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.