Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00384/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00384-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MAROUS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, )

LLC, a corporation, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:07cv384-ID

)

ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Alabama State

University. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff Gil Berry, doing business as Gil Berry & Associates,

and Plaintiff Marous Brothers Construction, LLC, filed a response in opposition. (Doc.

No. 16.) After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant law, and

the allegations in the complaint, the court finds that the motion is due to be denied.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Jurisdiction over this action is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (diversity). 

The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue, and the court finds adequate

allegations in support of both personal jurisdiction and venue. 

Case 2:07-cv-00384-RDP-CSC Document 57 Filed 02/04/08 Page 1 of 6
2

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant

may move to dismiss a complaint because the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion

questions the legal sufficiency of a complaint; therefore, in assessing the merits of a Rule

12(b)(6) motion, the court must assume that all the factual allegations set forth in the

complaint are true. See United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 327 (1991); Powell v.

Lennon, 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11 Cir. 1990). Moreover, all factual allegations are to be th

construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Brower v. County of Inyo, 489

U.S. 593, 598 (1989). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under

Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but must

include enough facts “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the

assumption that all allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007). 

III. RELEVANT FACTS

The relevant facts in the complaint are as follows. Defendant Alabama State

University (“ASU”) is an “instrumentality of the State of Alabama.” (Compl. ¶ 3.) In

2005, ASU decided to renovate six student housing buildings on its campus. (Id. ¶ 11.) 

The renovation project was known as the “Student Residence Project at ASU.” (Id.) On

November 15, 2005, pursuant to a resolution, Plaintiff Gil Berry, doing business as Gil

Case 2:07-cv-00384-RDP-CSC Document 57 Filed 02/04/08 Page 2 of 6
3

Berry & Associates (“GBA”), and another entity were named as the developers for the

project. (Id. ¶ 13.) Thereafter, at ASU’s and GBA’s request, Plaintiff Marous Brothers

Construction (“Marous”) was hired “to document existing conditions, prepare design

documents, and prepare documents outlining the intended scope of the renovation work.” 

(Id. ¶¶ 1, 14.) Consequently, Marous made “several field visits to ASU” and “prepared

floor plans, elevations, and detailed cost estimates for each of the six subject dormitory

buildings.” (Id. ¶ 14.) 

In May 2006, Marous provided its “proprietary work product” to ASU, detailing

its proposed renovations to the six dormitories. (Id. ¶ 15.) Subsequently, ASU used

Marous’ proprietary work product to obtain financing for the Student Resident Project. 

(Id. ¶¶ 18, 21.) Overall, Marous provided preconstruction services on the Student

Residence Project totaling $454,777.00, and GBA incurred fees related to its supervision

of the preconstruction services in the amount of $196,585.68. (Id. ¶ 35.) Plaintiffs have

submitted invoices for payment to ASU, but ASU has never paid the invoices,

notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ repeated requests. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 17, 24, 28, 29, 35, 38.) 

Seeking payment for services rendered and other relief, Plaintiffs filed this action

in May 2007 against ASU and five other Defendants. Plaintiffs contend that ASU entered

into an agreement with Plaintiffs “for development work to design, build, renovate, and

Case 2:07-cv-00384-RDP-CSC Document 57 Filed 02/04/08 Page 3 of 6
4

procure financing for the Student Resident Project, that Plaintiffs fully performed the

agreed-upon work, and that ASU owes them $651,362.68 for that work. (Id. ¶¶ 42-45.) 

Plaintiffs seek relief from ASU principally under a breach of contract theory. (Id.

¶¶ 41-46.)

IV. DISCUSSION

As grounds for its motion to dismiss, ASU argues that Plaintiffs’ claims against it

are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, as provided in Article I § 14 of the

Alabama Constitution of 1901, because it is an instrumentality of the State of Alabama. 

Plaintiffs do not dispute that ASU is a state agency which ordinarily would not be subject

to suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs, however, argue that their

allegations establish that ASU is legally obligated to pay Plaintiffs for the preconstruction

services they rendered in connection with ASU’s Student Resident Project and that these

facts bring their action within one of the doctrine’s narrow exceptions. For the reasons to

follow, the court agrees with Plaintiffs.

Article I, § 14 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, provides that “the State of

Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.” Id. Section 14

immunity extends to state agencies, Phillips v. Thomas, 555 So.2d 81, 83 (Ala. 1989),

which includes the “state’s institutions of higher learning.” Taylor v. Troy State

University, 437 So.2d 472, 474 (Ala. 1983). While the doctrine of sovereign immunity is

“nearly impregnable,” Patterson v. Gladwin Corp., 835 So.2d 137, 142 (Ala. 2002), the

Case 2:07-cv-00384-RDP-CSC Document 57 Filed 02/04/08 Page 4 of 6
5

Supreme Court of Alabama “has held that certain categories of actions do not come

within the prohibition of § 14[.]” Taylor, 437 So.2d at 474. One of those categories is

“actions brought to force state employees or agencies to perform their legal duties.” State

Highway Dept. v. Milton Constr. Co. (“Milton”), 586 So.2d 872, 875 (Ala. 1991).

Here, Plaintiffs allege that ASU entered into an agreement with them whereby

ASU would pay Plaintiffs for certain preconstruction services related to the Student

Residence Project. Plaintiffs allege that they performed this work, provided their work

product to ASU, and submitted invoices to ASU totaling $651,362.68. Plaintiffs further

allege that ASU accepted Plaintiffs’ work product and used that work product to secure

bond financing for the Student Residence Project and for other purposes, but that ASU

has not paid Plaintiffs. Accepting these facts as true, which the court must do at this

stage of the litigation, the court finds that the allegations establish that ASU legally

contracted under state law for services and accepted such services and, thus, is legally

obligated to pay for the services accepted under the terms of the agreement. See Milton,

586 So.2d at 875; (Compl. ¶¶ 41-45.) It follows, as it did in Milton, that “this obligation

is not subject to the doctrine of sovereign immunity” because “it is in the nature of an

action to compel [a state agency] to perform [its] legal duties and pay [Plaintiffs] for

services contracted for and rendered.” 586 So.2d at 875. Because Plaintiffs have alleged

Case 2:07-cv-00384-RDP-CSC Document 57 Filed 02/04/08 Page 5 of 6
 Because the court finds that Plaintiffs overcome ASU’s motion to dismiss based 1

upon the sovereign immunity exception discussed above, it need not and declines to

discuss the second exception upon which Plaintiffs rely as an alternative ground to defeat

the application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

6

facts which fall within an exception to sovereign immunity, the court finds that ASU’s

motion to dismiss is due to be denied.1

V. ORDER

Accordingly, it is CONSIDERED and ORDERED that Defendant Alabama State

University’s motion to dismiss be and the same is hereby DENIED.

DONE this 4 day of February, 2008. th

/s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00384-RDP-CSC Document 57 Filed 02/04/08 Page 6 of 6