Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_22-cv-01547/USCOURTS-alnd-2_22-cv-01547-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILS OF FAITH FREIGHT 

UNITERS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BIG TEX TRAILER 

MANUFACTURING, LLC, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:22-cv-01547-NAD

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

For the reasons stated below and on the record in the October 8, 2024 motion 

hearing, the court GRANTS Defendant Big Tex Trailer Manufacturing, LLC’s 

motion to dismiss (Doc. 63). See Doc. 66 (opposition); Doc. 67 (reply); Doc. 68 

(order to show cause); Doc. 69 (response); Doc. 71 (reply); minute entry entered: 

10/08/2024. 

BACKGROUND

Factual background

The following facts are undisputed: 

In early 2022, Plaintiff Wils of Faith Freight Uniters, LLC purchased a “Big 

Tex” trailer for $18,061.07. Doc. 50 at 9. The trailer came with Big Tex 

FILED

 2024 Dec-11 PM 12:28

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:22-cv-01547-NAD Document 74 Filed 12/11/24 Page 1 of 10
2

Manufacturing’s limited express warranty. Doc. 34 at 5; Doc. 35-7. 

On or about May 31, 2022, a Wils employee was towing the trailer on an 

interstate in Indiana when the trailer’s axle “dropped to the ground.” Doc. 1-1 at 4. 

Wils called Big Tex’s warranty department and was told to contact Valpo Trailer, 

an authorized repair shop in Valparaiso, Indiana. Doc. 34 at 7. Valpo was unable 

to fix the trailer and referred Wils to Carl’s Truck and Trailer Repair, Inc. Doc. 34 

at 7. Because Carl’s was not an authorized repair shop, Big Tex notified Wils that 

Wils would have to first pay for any repair and then submit the cost for 

reimbursement. Doc. 34 at 7. 

Deposition testimony reflects that Wils received an informal, oral estimate for 

the cost of repair from Carl’s for $2,000 in 2022 (though those facts are disputed),

but Wils was unable to pay that estimated cost of repair. Doc. 34 at 7.

On June 2, 2022, Big Tex reminded Wils to send an estimate for the cost of 

repair, and Wils responded that it would have a written estimate in the “next couple 

of days” and would “reach out” to Big Tex once Wils had received that estimate. 

Doc. 35-9 at 3. 

Wils never provided a formal, written estimate to Big Tex. Doc. 53 at 13. 

Instead, Wils filed this lawsuit. 

Procedural background

Wils filed this case in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Alabama, in 

Case 2:22-cv-01547-NAD Document 74 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 10
3

September 2022. Doc. 1-1 at 3. On December 9, 2022, Big Tex removed the case 

to this court based on diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 1. The parties consented to 

magistrate judge jurisdiction. Doc. 10; see U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. 

On December 13, 2023, Big Tex filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 

33), which the court granted in substantial part on April 25, 2024 (Doc. 53).

After the court’s summary judgment ruling, only Wils’ claim for breach of the 

express warranty against Big Tex Manufacturing remained pending. See Doc. 53 at 

10–14. 

On May 9, 2024, Big Tex filed a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 55), which 

the court denied (Doc. 60). 

On July 2, 2024, Big Tex filed this motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Doc. 63. In its motion to dismiss, Big Tex argues that Wils’ only 

remaining claim for breach of the express warranty is moot because Wils no longer 

owns the relevant trailer, and consequently has no personal stake in the resolution of 

this case.1

 Doc. 63 at 3–4. 

More importantly, Big Tex also argues that this case is moot because Big Tex 

offered to settle the case for more than the maximum full relief that the plaintiff 

1 That argument is unavailing. As the court already has explained, “on the plain 

meaning of the terms of the express warranty, there is no requirement that a 

purchaser like the plaintiff maintain possession of a trailer in order to sue for and 

collect damages in an action for breach.” Doc. 69 at 2–3. 

Case 2:22-cv-01547-NAD Document 74 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 10
4

could claim and possibly collect at trial on the express warranty claim, and 

consequently that no live controversy remains. According to Big Tex, Big Tex had 

offered Wils $3,000 to settle this case, which is more than the asserted cost of 

repairing the trailer under the express warranty. Doc. 63 at 4–7.

In its response to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff argued that the case was 

not moot because Big Tex only offered the plaintiff the cost of repairing the trailer, 

not replacing it. Doc. 66 at 1–2 (“Plaintiff submitted the offer of $18,061.07 for full 

relief that the plaintiff could claim to the Defendant.”). 

On August 30, 2024, the court ordered Big Tex to show cause why the court 

should not deny its motion to dismiss, given what appeared to be the live controversy 

about the cost of repair, and in the absence of Big Tex’s having made an offer to 

have judgment entered against it (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 68). Doc. 68. 

Big Tex responded to that order to show case. Doc. 69. And, as part of its 

response, Big Tex moved in limine to exclude any evidence of a May 2024 email 

estimate from Carl’s for the cost of repair. Doc. 69. The plaintiff filed its reply to 

Big Tex’s response, including its opposition to Big Tex’s evidentiary in limine

motion. Doc. 71. The court then held a motion hearing on Big Tex’s motion to 

dismiss, the briefing on the order to show cause, and the briefing on Big Tex’s 

evidentiary in limine motion. See minute entry entered: 10/08/2024. 

The court now has granted Big Tex’s evidentiary in limine motion (in an order 

Case 2:22-cv-01547-NAD Document 74 Filed 12/11/24 Page 4 of 10
5

entered this date), ruling that the only admissible evidence on the cost of repair is

the deposition testimony that Wils received an oral estimate of $2,000 from Carl’s

in 2022 (Doc. 35-1 at 21, 42), and that the May 2024 estimate and any related 

testimony or other related evidence is inadmissible. 

LEGAL STANDARD

The United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to 

“[c]ases” and “[c]ontroversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. Consequently, a claim for 

relief is moot “when it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to which 

the court can give meaningful relief.” Djadju v. Vega, 32 F.4th 1102, 1106 (11th 

Cir. 2022) (quoting Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 

1189 (11th Cir. 2011)). 

In this regard, a court does not assess mootness “simply by looking to the state 

of affairs at the time the suit was filed”; rather, the United States Supreme Court has 

instructed that the “controversy ‘must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at 

the time the complaint is filed.’” Christian Coal. of Fla., 662 F.3d at 1189–90 

(quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975)). In short, “a case becomes 

moot when the reviewing court can no longer offer any effective relief to the 

claimant.” Gagliardi v. TJCV Land Tr., 889 F.3d 728, 733 (11th Cir. 2018). 

“[M]ootness is jurisdictional, and the court must resolve any question of 

mootness before it assumes jurisdiction.” United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 

Case 2:22-cv-01547-NAD Document 74 Filed 12/11/24 Page 5 of 10
6

1189 (11th Cir. 2008).

DISCUSSION

The court now must dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as 

moot because (1) under Alabama law, Big Tex limited is liability on the express 

warranty to the cost of repair—not the cost of replacement—and (2) in light of the 

only admissible evidence on the cost of repair, Big Tex has made an offer of 

judgment that exceeds the maximum full relief that the plaintiff can claim and 

possibly collect at trial on the express warranty claim, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. 

1. In Ag-Chem Equipment Co. v. Limestone Farmers Co-op., Inc., the 

Alabama Supreme Court held that, when a warranty requires the manufacturer to

repair or replace the product, the manufacturer is “under no duty, under the warranty, 

to replace” the allegedly defective product, and a manufacturer’s “liability may not 

exceed the cost of [repair].” 567 So. 2d 250, 252 (Ala. 1990); see Doc. 63; Doc. 68. 

The express warranty in this case is consistent with Alabama substantive law 

under Ag-Chem. Pursuant to the express warranty, “[t]he obligations of Big Tex 

Trailer Manufacturing, Inc. (the Company) under this limited warranty shall be 

limited to repairing or replacing any [relevant] part or parts . . . .” Doc. 35-7 

(emphasis added). 

In its order denying Big Tex’s motion for reconsideration, the court reasoned 

that, “[i]n light of the court’s partial summary judgment order (Doc. 53), the 

Case 2:22-cv-01547-NAD Document 74 Filed 12/11/24 Page 6 of 10
7 

maximum full relief that the plaintiff can claim and possibly collect at this point 

appears to be $18,061.07”—i.e., the price that Wils paid to purchase the trailer, or 

the cost of replacement in this case. Doc. 60 at 2 (emphasis in original). 

Moreover, the plaintiff now argues that this case is not moot and that the court 

should deny Big Tex’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

because Big Tex has refused the plaintiff’s offer to settle for the cost of replacement 

($18,061.07). According to the plaintiff, “In discussing mootness, this case would 

unquestionably be moot if the plaintiff had accepted the offer of full relief. The 

catch here, however, is that the plaintiff did offer $18,061.07 but the defendant did 

not accept this offer of judgment.” Doc. 66 at 2 (cleaned up; citations omitted). 

But Big Tex is correct that under Ag-Chem the terms of the express warranty 

limit Big Tex’s liability for breach to “the cost of full[] repair.” 567 So. 2d at 252 

(“Under the terms of the warranty between [the manufacturer] and [the purchaser], 

[the manufacturer] . . . may be held liable only for the cost of fully repairing the 

engine.”); see also id. (“[The manufacturer’s] liability may not exceed the cost of 

repairing the engine.”). As discussed above, on the plain language of Big Tex’s 

express warranty in this case, Big Tex can repair the defective part(s) or replace the 

trailer. Doc. 63 at 4; Doc. 69 at 15; see Doc. 35-7 at 2 (“The obligations of Big Tex 

Trailer Manufacturing, Inc. (the Company) under this limited warranty shall be 

limited to repairing or replacing any part or parts which, in the opinion of the 

Case 2:22-cv-01547-NAD Document 74 Filed 12/11/24 Page 7 of 10
8 

Company, shall be proved defective in materials or workmanship under normal use 

and service during the one-year-period commencing with the date of purchase.”). 

Thus, under Ag-Chem, and on the plain terms of the express warranty, Big 

Tex’s liability in this case cannot exceed the cost of repairing the trailer. 

2. As noted above, the court has ruled that the only admissible evidence 

on the cost of repair is the deposition testimony that Wils received an oral estimate 

of $2,000 from Carl’s in 2022. Doc. 35-1 at 21, 42. So (again), under Ag-Chem and 

according to the plain terms of the express warranty in this case, the maximum full 

relief that the plaintiff can claim and possibly collect at trial is $2,000. 

Furthermore, as part of its response to the court’s order to show cause, Big 

Tex made an offer of judgment of $3,000 in order to moot this case. Doc. 69 at 38–

39; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. Big Tex “asks this Court to dismiss the claim in the event 

that [the plaintiff] does not accept the offer within the 14 days allowed by Rule 68, 

or alternatively, if accepted, that a judgment be entered against Big Tex for 

$3,000.00 covering all remaining claims and requests for relief.” Doc. 69 at 40. 

While the plaintiff has not accepted Big Tex’s Rule 68 offer of judgment of

$3,000, a defendant’s offer of full relief, even if not accepted by the plaintiff, still 

moots the case. But the court must enter final judgment consistent with the Rule 68 

offer of judgment. See, e.g., Mackenzie v. Kindred Hospitals East, LLC, 276 F. 

Supp. 2d 1211, 1219 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (“The defendant’s offer of full relief therefore 

Case 2:22-cv-01547-NAD Document 74 Filed 12/11/24 Page 8 of 10
9

rendered this case moot, even though the plaintiff did not accept that offer.”). For 

example, in Zinni v. ER Solutions, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district 

court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 

holding that “the failure of [the defendants] to offer judgment prevented the 

mooting” of the plaintiffs’ claims, and consequently that the “district court erred in 

concluding [the defendants’] offers of settlement were for full relief such that 

[plaintiffs’] cases were mooted.” 692 F.3d at 1168 & n.9 (emphasis added). 

Aside from the cost of repair under the express warranty, there are no other 

damages that the plaintiff here can claim and possibly collect at trial. In its reply to 

the court’s order to show cause, the plaintiff argues that it can recover damages for 

mental anguish. Doc. 71 at 31–32. But, “[g]enerally, mental-anguish damages are 

not recoverable in a breach-of-contract action.” Barko Hydraulics, LLC v. Shepherd, 

167 So. 3d 304, 312 (Ala. 2014). Alabama law does allow certain exceptions to this 

general rule (e.g., in cases involving the habitability of a house, contracts of carriage, 

and Alabama’s lemon law), but none of those exceptions could apply here. E.g., 

Bowers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 827 So. 2d 63, 69 (Ala. 2001). 

The plaintiff also previously has maintained a request for attorneys fees. But 

the plaintiff still has identified no basis under Alabama or federal law to claim any 

attorneys fees, costs, or expenses. “Under the bedrock principle known as the 

American Rule, each litigant pays his own attorney’s fees, win or lose, unless a 

Case 2:22-cv-01547-NAD Document 74 Filed 12/11/24 Page 9 of 10
10

statute or contract provides otherwise.” Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 

371, 382 (2013) (cleaned up; citation omitted); see Doc. 60; Doc. 66 at 6–8 (citing 

Alabama statutory law as to restrictive covenants and the Alabama Telemarketing 

Act). 

Accordingly, in light of Big Tex’s offer of judgment of $3,000, which is more 

than the maximum amount of full relief that the plaintiff otherwise can recover at 

trial on the express warranty claim (given the only admissible on the cost of repair 

of the trailer), no live controversy remains, and this case is moot. As a result, the 

court must dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Big Tex’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 63) is 

GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED, to the extent that judgment in the 

amount of $3,000 shall be ENTERED against Defendant Big Tex Trailer 

Manufacturing, LLC, and in favor of Plaintiff Wils of Faith Freight Uniters, LLC. 

Separately, the court will enter final judgment. 

DONE and ORDERED this December 11, 2024. 

 _________________________________

 NICHOLAS A. DANELLA

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01547-NAD Document 74 Filed 12/11/24 Page 10 of 10