Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_08-cv-00275/USCOURTS-almd-3_08-cv-00275-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Leuchtman
Plaintiff
Marc Leuchtman
Plaintiff
Willie Sanford
Defendant
The City of Auburn, Alabama
Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

CHARLES LEUCHTMAN and )

MARC LEUCHTMAN, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08cv275-SRW 

) (WO)

THE CITY OF AUBURN, ALABAMA )

and DETECTIVE WILLIE SANFORD, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This action is presently before the court on the motion to dismiss filed in this action

on April 8, 2008 (Doc. # 6) by defendants City of Auburn and Willie Sanford. Defendants

contend that the claims of plaintiff Marc Leuchtman are due to be dismissed because plaintiff

has failed to file a Notice of Claim with the City of Auburn as required by Ala. Code § 11-

47-23 and § 11-47-192.

Section 11-47-192 states:

No recovery shall be had against any city or town on a claim for personal

injury received, unless a sworn statement be filed with the clerk by the party

injured . . . stating substantially the manner in which the injury was received,

the day and time and the place where the accident occurred and the damages

claimed.

Section 11-47-23 provides that claims against municipalities for damages growing out of

torts are barred unless they are presented to the clerk for payment within six months of

accrual.

Case 3:08-cv-00275-SRW Document 22 Filed 06/23/08 Page 1 of 2
1

 Since plaintiffs have now clarified, in response to the show cause order, that Counts

1-3 are brought by Charles Leuchtman only, the motion is due to be denied as moot as to

these claims. Additionally, because §§ 11-47-23 and 11-47-192 are statutes of non-claim and

limitation, they are affirmative defenses as to which defendants bear the burden of proof. See

Alexander City v. Continental Ins. Co., 262 Ala. 515 (1955); Taylor v. City of Clanton, 245

Ala. 671 (1944)("The presentation for payment to the clerk . . . is in the nature of a non-claim

and matter to be presented as a defense."). Since defendants filed no evidence with their

motion, the court had no occasion to treat the motion as one for summary judgment. Thus,

the motion to dismiss is due to be denied in its entirety.

2

The court previously denied the motion as to Count Eight (the § 1983 claim) and as

to all of plaintiffs' claims against defendant Sanford individually. Upon further consideration

of the motion, it is

ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as to plaintiffs' remaining claims against the

City.1

DONE, this 23rd day of June, 2008.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00275-SRW Document 22 Filed 06/23/08 Page 2 of 2