Experience
  • General Experience
    • Shelithea Hallums and Samuel Castillo v. Infinity Insurance Company and Infinity Auto Insurance Company, 16-24507-CIV-Moreno, U.S Dist. Ct. for the Southern District of Florida
      Mike Pennington, Thomas Richie and Bradley’s Class Action team successfully obtained summary judgment for Infinity Insurance Company and Infinity Auto Insurance Company in a putative class action lawsuit alleging that Infinity’s Lessor Liability Endorsement was illusory and did not provide any valuable coverage. Plaintiffs argued that the Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106, foreclosed any possibility of lessor liability. Plaintiffs pleaded claims for declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, and negligent omission. The case involved allegations that, under the Lessor Liability Endorsement, the damages that a lessor becomes legally obligated to pay can only stem from an injury for which the insured is also legally liable. Plaintiffs argued that this liability fell within the definition of “vicarious liability” that was disallowed by the Graves Amendment. After discovery extensive briefing and a hearing on summary judgment and class certification issues, the court granted Infinity’s motion for summary judgment and entered a final judgment in favor of Infinity and against the plaintiffs. The court held that the endorsement was not illusory.

      Secured dismissal of FCRA class action
      Represented client in FCRA class action claiming a pattern and practice of failing to provide a timely adverse action notice for terminating an applicant based on an adverse credit report. Bradley’s Class Action team recommended that the client file a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or in the alternative for summary judgment under Rule 56. Client submitted an affidavit averring that the employee was not terminated based on his credit report, but plaintiff’s termination was due to his failure to report for training. The accompanying motion argued that there was no need for discovery—if plaintiff claimed he had attended the training or that was not told that his failure to attend was the reason for termination, he could sign and file an affidavit under oath saying so, and the company would then concede that its motion should be denied. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case rather than swear under penalty of perjury to the allegations in his complaint.

      Atlanta Casualty Co. v. Russell, 798 So.2d 664 (Ala. 2001)
      Mike Pennington successfully defended this fraud and breach of contract class action against two automobile insurers, challenging their application of a lienholder endorsement and associated deductible payable by the insured for otherwise covered losses on leased automobiles. The trial court certified the class, but Bradley successfully appealed, obtaining an opinion that reversed the trial court’s class certification decision and effectively ended the case.

      Huber, et al. v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 8:10-cv-02458
      In this case, plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $5 million and claimed defendant engaged in a “fraudulent scheme” involving falsified affidavits, untimely assignments, and fraudulent notarizations. They asserted claims for § 1983 civil-rights violations, abuse of process, and deceptive trade practices, and they sought a declaratory judgment regarding the unclean-hands defense and the voiding of affidavits. Mike Pennington and his team were able to secure dismissal on the aggressive early motions.

      Michael G. Marchant, et al. v. LaSalle Bank, N.A., et al.
      Represented Amsted Industries, Inc., the initial target defendant in this class action of 14 consolidated cases as returned to the N.D. Ala. after referral to multidistrict litigation. The named plaintiffs brought claims in 2001 on behalf of a consolidated class of plan participants of an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP). The named plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached fiduciary duties by overvaluing employer shares held by the ESOP. Plaintiff’s expert calculated damages ranging from $60 to $100 million. The trustee asserted indemnity and other claims against Amsted, our client, which was the employer and ESOP sponsor. The ESOP’s shares’ value had dropped to less than one fifth of the challenged valuations’ share price. The trustee asserted our client Amsted was not only at fault, but had to pay any trustee liability under a written indemnification provision. Amsted settled with plaintiffs and the certified class and with the trustee for $2 million of the $13.5 million total settlement, which the court approved in February, 2011.

      Robertson v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company CV-92-021 (Cir. Ct. of Barbour County, Alabama), 676 So. 2d 1265 (Ala. 1995)
      In the midst of the so-called “tort-hell” in Alabama in the mid-1990s. Mike Pennington successfully foreclosed nearly 2,000 individual fraud and punitive damage actions with a global 23(b)(2) no-opt-out settlement of all claims involving an alleged “cancer policy exchange program” whereby holders of cancer policies were allegedly induced to exchange their old policies for newer ones with different benefits. The firm successfully defended the settlement on appeal, Adams v. Liberty National, 676 So.2d 1265 (Ala. 1995), obtained dismissal of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, and has since successfully defended the settlement against numerous collateral attacks.

      Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
      Mike Pennington and his team worked with colleagues at two other national firms to successfully defend a class action against a major cable internet service provider involving alleged violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act through the use of devices that allegedly developed targeted advertising through devices that monitor internet use by customers.

      Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 Usc 1693b(D)) and Regulation E
      The firm has defended and is currently defending numerous class actions seeking statutory damages and other relief against retail chains whose stores allegedly contain ATM machines without the notices required by federal law.

      Ex parte Liberty National Life Ins. Co., 825 So.2d 758 (Ala. 2002)
      Through a creative mandamus from the denial of a motion to dismiss, Mike Pennington, Scott Smith and their team successfully defeated a putative class action by obtaining an a first-of-its-kind opinion from the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama’s common law 20 year period of repose applies not just to property claims, but also to tort claims.

      Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
      Mike Pennington has defended numerous class actions involving alleged violations of FACTA, including cases against theater chains, restaurant chains, and convenience store chains, among others.

      Florida insurance discrimination litigation
      Mike Pennington, Scott Smith and their team defended a life insurance company in two Florida class actions and five individual arbitrations in Florida, and also helped to successfully defend an administrative action by the Florida Department of Insurance, all relating to alleged discrimination against Haitian-born applicants based upon alienage and foreign travel. One of the class actions was resolved by summary judgment against the named plaintiffs, the second class action and the arbitrations were resolved with favorable settlements, and the administrative action was litigated to a favorable conclusion.

      In re: Liberty National Insurance Cases, 2:02-cv-02741-UWC (N.D. Ala)
      Mike Pennington defended numerous class and individual actions in multiple states against a life insurer challenging the historical use of race-distinct mortality in the pricing of life insurance issued prior to the mid-1960s. Many of these actions were transferred to and consolidated in the Northern District of Alabama. With global summary judgment motions filed, the firm was able to negotiate a global settlement of these claims, obtain court approval of it, and then enforce the settlement against competing actions.

      Insurance industry class and opt-out litigation
      Mike Pennington and Scott Smith each have extensive experience defending class and opt-out litigation against life, health and disability insurers, as well as property and casualty insurers. Their experience includes a wide variety of sales practice litigation, contract litigation, and tort litigation involving life insurance, disability insurance, automobile insurance, cancer insurance, burial insurance, preneed funeral insurance, and variable annuities. Mike has been personally defending complex litigation, class actions and opt-out litigation against insurers for over 20 years.

      Mortgage industry litigation
      Numerous Bradley attorneys, including Mike Pennington, John Goodman, Scott Smith, and Ann Phelps, have defended several national mortgage companies in numerous class actions filed in state and federal courts in Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, New Jersey, Texas, and Arkansas. The claims involve a variety of theories ranging from fraud, abuse of process, and deceptive trade practices to unjust enrichment and Section 1983 claims.

      Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
      Bradley attorneys, including Mike Pennington, Jimmy Gewin and John Goodman, successfully defended a major national realtor in a class action alleging violations of RESPA.

      Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act class actions
      In the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Shady Grove Orthopedics, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Company, claims under state Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts may be brought as class actions in federal court even if the state statute purports to bar class treatment. Mike Pennington has defended numerous putative class actions asserting claims under state Deceptive Trade Practice statutes brought in federal court, and has also defended state court deceptive trade practice act class actions in states that permit such claims, such as Florida and New Jersey.

      Voting rights class action
      The firm successfully secured dismissal of a class action seeking $100 million in civil damages for alleged voting fraud.

      Coker v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., et al.
      Working with the Alabama State Personnel Board, a Bradley litigation team represented a class of over 23,500 State of Alabama employees participating in a deferred compensation retirement plan on claims of breach of fiduciary duty, wantonness, and breach of contract against the state employees union and Nationwide Life Insurance Company entities. The state employees union chose Nationwide as the exclusive provider of plan services and negotiated with Nationwide as to Nationwide’s profits, which were taken from plan participants’ retirement savings, yet at the same time the union negotiated secret payments to itself from Nationwide. Over nine years, Nationwide paid the union about $13 million. Bradley litigation attorneys discovered the secret payments when doing background research on another plan-related claim. This litigation involved avoiding securities law preemption and obtaining the cooperation of numerous state agencies and defendants who fought every possible discovery and merits issue. After several years of litigation, the case settled for over $18.9 million, which was approved by the court and paid in 2011.

      Lynn v. Amoco Oil Co., et al., 459 F.Supp.2d 1175 (M.D. Ala. 2006)
      The firm defended nationwide putative class action against major oil companies alleging conspiracy involving leaking underground storage tanks. After summary judgment was granted on the conspiracy count, the remainder of the case was voluntarily dismissed.

      Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation (Cir. Cts. Shelby, Calhoun, Mobile Cos., Ala.)
      This controversy, involving alleged price-fixing by infant formula manufacturers, resulted in three putative statewide class actions in Alabama state court. The courts in the first two cases denied class certification after extensive briefing and evidentiary hearings; the court in the third case voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice prior to reaching the class certification issue. The controversy resulted in the first ruling by an Alabama court that denial of class certification, if based on a ground other than inadequacy of representation, operates as res judicata as to the remainder of the class members as to class certification.

      Brand name prescription drug antitrust litigation
      Ongoing for the better part of a decade, this litigation was centered in multidistrict proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In addition to a nationwide class action there, the litigation included thousands of individual Robinson-Patman claims, and putative statewide class actions in nearly a dozen states. The firm, in addition to involvement in the nationwide proceedings, represented one of multiple defendants (the entire industry was sued) in four Alabama class actions. The Alabama litigation resulted in, among other things, the first denial anywhere in the nation of certification of a consumer class in this controversy, a decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals regarding aggregation of claims in the class action context, and a decision of the Alabama Supreme Court holding that the state’s antitrust statute does not apply to transactions in interstate commerce.

      Floyd v. Express Oil Change, L.L.C., 552 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (N.D. Ala. 2008)
      This putative class action involved claims that defendant (which faced statutory penalties amounting to multiples of its net worth) violated the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA) by failing to truncate customers’ credit numbers on purchase receipts. The court held that FACTA as applied to the transactions at issue was unconstitutional, and dismissed the case. While the district court’s ruling (made in consolidated cases) was subsequently vacated on appeal, plaintiffs elected not to appeal that ruling with respect to the firm’s client.

      Vandenberg v. Aramark Educational Services and the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, 81 So. 3d 326 (Ala. 2011)
      This putative class action challenged, on antitrust and constitutional grounds, the University of Alabama’s mandatory student dining program, operated by a private company. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the challenged program partook of state action immunity.

      ERISA
      Mike Pennington has defended class and mass actions involving a variety of ERISA claims, including claims pleaded as ERISA claims and claims pleaded as state law claims but successfully removed under ERISA. In one pre-CAFA mass action, Mike once simultaneously removed 100 individual fraud actions simultaneously filed in various state courts in Mississippi by a notorious plaintiffs’ firm, ultimately resulting in a global settlement of those and several hundred other individual cases for a nominal per case amount. In another case, Mike and his team defended an ERISA plan fiduciary against breach of fiduciary duty charges in an ESOP transaction, ultimately achieving a settlement in which the firm’s client obtained a release without being required to contribute any out-of-pocket funds to the settlement.

      Abney v. American Home Shield Corp. (N.D. Ala.)
      Nationwide class action claiming that home warranty company’s payment of compensation to real estate agents violated RESPA. Case settled on class basis.

      American Auto Ins. Co. v. McDonald, 812 So. 2d 309 (Ala. 2001)
      In this putative class action, the Alabama Supreme Court held that the lessees of rental cars had no private right of action against the rental car company for unlicensed sale of insurance.

      Dellaveccia v. Bayer Corp. (N.D. Ala.)
      Nationwide class action based on allegedly deceptive print and television advertising for aspirin. Claims asserted for fraud and deceptive trade practices. Class certification denied and case dismissed.

      Farley v. Saxon Mortgage Company, et al., Civil Action No. 7:06-cv-01864-KOB (N.D. Ala.), filed 2007
      TILA, HOEPA, RESPA and RICO class action claims against our client, which was a purchaser of mortgages in the secondary market, were dismissed for lack of standing.

      Faught v. American Home Shield Corp. (N.D. Ala.)
      Nationwide class action challenging home warranty company’s claims handling practices. Case settled on class basis over objection, and upheld on appeal. Injunction against prosecution of competing class action granted and upheld on appeal (660 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2011)).

      William Gaudet et al. v. American Home Shield Corp. (E.D. La.)
      Nationwide class action challenging home warranty company’s claims handling practices. Class certification denied; individual claims settled.

      Frazier v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., 607 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (M.D. Ala. 2009)
      Summary judgment granted for lender on basis that finance charges did not exceed tolerances under TILA and loan was not a HOEPA loan.

      Grimes v. Rave Motion Pictures Birmingham, L.L.C. 2:07-cv-1397-WMA (N.D. Ala.), filed 2007
      Class certification of putative nationwide class action alleging violations of FACTA relating to improper truncation of account numbers on receipts was denied as to our client.

      Homestead 2000 v. Federal Express Corp. (Cir. Ct. Obion Co., Tenn.)
      Challenge to fuel surcharge by defendant on its customers; plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $100 million. Albe Conte, author of the treatise Newberg on Class Actions, testified as an expert for plaintiffs at class certification. Class certification denied; plaintiffs’ individual claims settled.

      Hutcherson v. MBNA America Bank, N. A., Adversary Proceeding No. 99-00401-BGC (Bankr. N.D. Ala.), filed 1999
      Summary judgment obtained for bank in stay violation putative class action.

      Klutho v. Corinthian Mortgage Corp. (E.D. Mo.)
      Putative nationwide class challenging defendant’s “firm offer of credit” circular under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted; no class certified.

      Luckie v. DirectBuy (Cir. Ct. Jefferson Co., Ala.)
      Putative statewide class action alleging that defendant improperly charged sales tax on shipping and handling charges in connection with out-of-state purchases. Motion to dismiss granted; no class certified.

      Metzger v. American Fidelity Assurance Corp. (W.D. Okla.)
      Putative statewide class contesting supplemental health insurer’s construction of policy language as to claims payment. Class certification denied (249 F.R.D. 375 (W.D. Okla. 2007)) on the basis of intraclass conflicts; subsequently settled.

      Morton Orman v. SouthTrust Corp., et al., C.A. No. 519-N (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County), filed 2004
      In shareholder putative class action alleging that SouthTrust Directors breached their fiduciary duty by agreeing to the terms of sale of the institution to Wachovia Corporation, plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief was denied and case thereafter dismissed.

      Naughton v. Corinthian Mortgage Corp. (E.D. Va.)
      Alleged nationwide class action asserting claims under Fair Credit Reporting Act. Summary judgment for defendant granted; no class certified.

      Orange Juice Marketing Class Action Litigation, 2013 WL 120716 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 8, 2013)
      These two putative nationwide class actions challenged defendants’ marketing of their orange juice as “all natural.” Plaintiffs’ effort to create multidistrict litigation was defeated; motion to dismiss granted without leave to replead; no class certified.

      Roosevelt Hardaway, et al. v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC and Homecomings Financial LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Ct., N.D. Miss.)
      Putative nationwide class action alleging improper proof of claim practices against creditor, seeking disgorgement of overpayments, turnover and sanctions. Settled on individual basis; no class certified.

      Body shop antitrust litigation
      Mike Pennington defended three different insurers in mass actions brought in Tennessee and Florida by numerous body shops against a number of automobile insurers alleging steering, price-fixing, boycott, and various state law causes of action regarding each insurer’s alleged practice of entering into “preferred body shop” agreements with certain body shops. Mike opposed multidistrict litigation consolidation of these cases.

      Commercial litigation
      Assisted in defense of national mortgage broker in putative class action in federal court alleging violations of state’s finder’s fee law and consumer protection act in connection with purportedly fraudulent referral program used in consumer mortgage loan transactions, resulting in minimal payment to individual class representatives and dismissal of class action.

      Commercial litigation
      Served as local counsel on behalf of national tax services provider in lawsuit brought in federal court by franchisee alleging fraud and breach of contract arising out of negotiation and compliance with franchise agreement; helped to secure dismissal of franchisee’s fraud claims for failure to state viable claims and summary judgment in client’s favor on franchisee’s breach of contract claim based upon lack of evidence supporting violations alleged.

      Abbott Point of Care, Inc. v. Epocal, Inc. (N.D. Ala.)
      This matter involved claims against the defendant manufacturer of patient point-of-care testing equipment in two separate lawsuits, where plaintiff asserted claims of infringement related to four patents, interference with noncompetition agreements with former employees of plaintiff, and ownership over the subject patents. John Goodman represented the defendants and was lead trial counsel on all aspects of plaintiff’s state law claims. Following a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict for defendant on all counts. Aspects of the case are reported at 908 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (N.D. Ala. 2012).

      Pixsys Technologies, Inc. v. Agemni, LLC (N.D. Ala.)
      This case involved innovative use of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to stop the competitor of the firm’s client from utilizing a legitimate customer’s credentialing and password to access the client’s internet-based proprietary software. The firm obtained a temporary restraining order against the competitor; following intensive discovery, the case was favorably settled. Aspects of the case are reported at 2013 WL 5739027 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 22, 2013) and additional commentary on the case can be found here.

      E.S. Robbins Corp. v. Schwertner (N.D. Ala.)
      This case involved misappropriation of manufacturing process secrets belonging to the inventor of poly-coated livestock fencing, by the company’s former chief technical officer. The officer was attempting to use the technology in a competing manufacturing operation with one of the company’s distributors. Following discovery and a multiple day non-jury trial, the court entered a seven-year permanent injunction in favor of the firm’s client and against the former officer and his new employer. The injunction was affirmed on appeal by the Eleventh Circuit. The case was notable both for the length of the injunction granted and because the case raised for the first time in Alabama the inevitable disclosure doctrine.

      Marketron International, Inc. v. OneDomain, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Jefferson Co., Ala.)
      John Goodman represented defendants in this software case, alleging trade secret misappropriation and violation of noncompetition covenants, brought against them by their former employer. Although an ex parte TRO was initially granted, the firm defeated plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, and won summary judgment on all claims. The court also awarded the defendants attorneys’ fees under the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act.

      Ormco Corp. v. Johns, 869 So. 2d 1109 (Ala. 2003)
      John Goodman represented the plaintiff medical supply company in this noncompete action against its former employee. The trial court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief was reversed on appeal, in a case that established the standard in Alabama for proving irreparable injury in the noncompetition context.

      Askew v. DCH Health Care Authority, 995 F.2d 1033 (11th Cir. 1993)
      This landmark decision applied the state action doctrine in the context of a monopolization claim against a hospital organized under the Alabama Health Care Authority Act.

      Ram Tool Supply Co., Inc. v. White Cap Construction Supply Co. (N.D. Ala.)
      John Goodman served as lead counsel for defendants in an action by a construction supply company against its former employees and their new employer, alleging trade secret misappropriation. Following extensive discovery and a lengthy evidentiary hearing, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The case was subsequently refiled in Tennessee, where defendants sought and were granted summary judgment.

      Diamond Game Enterprises v. Enfinger (Cir. Ct. Jefferson Co., Ala.)
      This case involved representation of defendants in claims by former employer based on alleged breach of non-solicitation and confidentiality agreement. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction was denied based on Alabama’s door-closing statute, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

      SRS Technologies v. Physitron (N.D. Ala.)
      The firm in this case represented plaintiff, a designer and manufacturer of space-ready antennae technology, alleging trade secret misappropriation by a former employer and a competitor. The case settled favorably during the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, with the entry of a consent injunction.

      Wyatt Safety Supply Co. v. Industrial Safety Prods. , 566 So. 2d 728 (Ala. 1990)
      Representation of defendants in non-compete action; trial court’s preliminary injunction reversed on appeal. The case established the law in Alabama at that time that successor corporations could not enforce non-compete agreements entered into by their predecessors. 

      Corinthian Mortgage Corp. v. Choicepoint Precision Marketing, LLC (E.D. Va.)
      Suit by bank alleging breach of confidentiality agreement by defendant mailing list vendor, resulting in competitor’s acquisition of plaintiff’s information. Settled favorably.

      Integrity Rehab Group v. Arkansas Specialty Orthopaedics (E.D. Ark.)
      Representation of orthopaedic rehabilitation management company in suit for specific performance and breach of contract arising out agreement with doctor group containing non-compete covenants. Preliminary injunction denied, but case settled favorably prior to trial.

      Hot New Products, Inc. v. Trotter, Inc. (N.D. Ala.)
      Representation of seller of exercise equipment against manufacturer, alleging resale price maintenance under antitrust laws. Jury verdict for defendant, but case settled on appeal.

      HealthSouth v. Clark (D. S.C.)
      Representation of plaintiff in case alleging violation of duty of loyalty and breach of confidentiality agreement against former employee; case favorably settled following preliminary injunction hearing.

      Nutreco Canada, Inc. v. Douglas (Cir. Ct. Madison Co., Ala.)
      Representation of defendants in alleged misappropriation of trade secrets action. Favorably settled.

      Southern Pipe & Supply Co. v. Long (S.D. Miss.)
      Representation of plaintiff seeking enforcement of non-compete agreement; preliminary injunction granted and case settled favorably.

      Citadel Broadcasting Corp. v. Haney (N.D. Ala.)
      Representation of former sports radio employee in action seeking enforcement of noncompetition agreement. Favorably settled.

      Southern Pipe & Supply Co. v. Pruitt (S.D. Miss.)
      Representation of plaintiff manufacturer in non-compete action against former employee. Favorably settled.

      Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Price (Cir. Ct. Jefferson Co., Ala.)
      Representation of plaintiff insurer in non-compete action against its former CFO; case settled favorably.

      Cardinal Health 200, Inc. v. Dortch (Cir. Ct. Jefferson Co., Ala.)
      Representation of defendant former employees and new employer in non-compete action; case settled favorably.

      Johnson v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc. (M.D. Ala.)
      Representation of defendant employer in declaratory judgment action regarding non-compete agreement; case favorably settled.

      Red Clay Technology Group, Inc. v. Bentrup (Cir. Ct. Jefferson Co., Ala.)
      Representation of plaintiff in non-compete action; settled favorably.

      Southland Tube v. Long (Cir. Ct. Jefferson Co., Ala.)
      Representation of plaintiff manufacturer in non-compete action against former employee; case favorably settled.

      Cashpoint Network Servs, Inc. v. Sligh (Cir. Ct. Shelby Co., Ala.)
      Representation of employer in action against former employee for breach of a nondisclosure and confidentiality agreement. Case favorably settled.

      Randall Publishing Co. v. O’Brien (N.D. Ala.)
      Representation of plaintiff publishing company against former employees for violation of noncompetition agreements; case favorably settled.

      Wood v. McGriff, Seibels & Williams, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Jefferson Co., Ala.)
      Representation of defendant employer in declaratory judgment action involving non-compete agreement; case favorably settled.

      Rust Plant Servs, Inc. v. Koehler (N.D. Ala.)
      Representation of employer in action against employee for violation of nondisclosure agreement; case favorably settled.

      McGriff, Seibels & Williams, Inc. v. Colvin (Cir. Ct. Jefferson Co., Ala.)
      Representation of employer in action to enforce non-compete agreement; case favorably settled.

      H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc. v. Lewis (N.D. Ala.)
      Action seeking enforcement of noncompetition agreement; settled favorably.

      Roto-Rooter Corp. v. Cobb (N.D. Ala.)
      Suit to enforce non-competition agreement; settled by consent injunction.

      Institutional Sales Systems, Inc. v. Mullins (Cir. Ct. Jefferson Co., Ala.)
      Representation of new employer in action seeking enforcement of non-compete; summary judgment for new employer granted on tortious interference claim.

      Towns v. Stryka (N.D. Ala.)
      Representation of seller of health products in non-compete case against former employee. Favorably settled.

      Blue Medical Supply v. Mayfield (Cir. Ct. Jefferson Co., Ala.)
      Representation of plaintiff in suit alleging violation of noncompetition agreement. Favorably settled.

      Data breach class actions
      Mike Pennington and John Goodman have defended numerous data breach class actions brought against a retail gasoline and convenience store chain by customers and by and on behalf of banks which issued the credit cards of allegedly affected customers. Mike and John are opposing consolidation of these cases for multidistrict litigation (MDL) treatment by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

      Data breach class action
      Mike Pennington, John Goodman, and Thomas Richie defended a convenience store chain in multiple nationwide data breach class actions in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee, securing contested dismissal of the first, voluntary dismissal of another, and consolidating the remainder before negotiating a coverage agreement with the defendant’s insurer and forcing a favorable settlement largely at insurer expense. Mike and others have also previously represented other data breach class action defendants and counseled companies victimized by data breaches on litigation avoidance strategies.

       FDCPA and TILA class actions
      Mike Pennington and his team successfully fended off four separate statewide class actions brought against a mortgage servicer in Florida, Iowa, and Alabama under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Truth-in-Lending Act, each seeking a separate award of $500,000 in statutory damages under the FDCPA and TILA, by settling a fifth class action filed in Georgia on a nationwide basis. The nationwide settlement for a single classwide settlement amount of $500,000 was approved over the objections of the various would-be class counsel in the state-by-state class actions. Mike defended another FDCPA and TILA class action involving a different set of borrowers, as well as numerous other TILA and FDCPA class actions.

      Coal dust class action
      Mike Pennington and his team defended a class action against a major coal producer alleging that coal dust and other airborne particulates are being wrongfully deposited on properties surrounding a coal processing plant.

      Pharmacy records fee class actions
      Mike Pennington defended a major national pharmacy in a class action alleging excessive charges for pharmacy records produced pursuant to subpoenas.

      Recording fee class actions
      Mike Pennington has defended a number of class actions alleging that mortgage lenders are unlawfully avoiding payment recording fees on mortgage assignments through participation in the so-called “MERS” system.

      SCRA class action
      In 2013, Mike Pennington and Keith Anderson obtained dismissal of a class action brought against a major national lender under the Servicemen’s Civil Relief Act.

      Toxic tort class action
      Mike Pennington defended a nationwide class action against a global chemical manufacturer alleging negligent and wanton sale of a chemical for use in electrical capacitors manufactured prior to 1979.

      Seroyer v. Pfizer (Cir. Ct. Chambers Co., Ala.)
      Nationwide class action based on allegedly deceptive print and on product advertising of dental rinse. Claims asserted for fraud and deceptive trade practices. Class certification denied and case dismissed.

      Ex parte Bonner, 171 So. 3d 614 (Ala. 2014)
      Granting petition for writ of mandamus and ordering dismissal of putative class claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty as to investment policy, based on sovereign immunity.