Rel: April 19, 2024

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern 

Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 

300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other 

errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

_________________________

SC-2023-0313

_________________________

State of Alabama

v.

Jay's Charity Bingo; Alabama STEM Education, Inc.; and Bobby 

R. St. John

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division

(CV-23-28)

_________________________

SC-2023-0314

_________________________

State of Alabama

v.
SC-2023-0313; SC-2023-0314; SC-2023-0315; SC-2023-0316; SC-2023-

0317; SC-2023-0318; SC-2023-0319; SC-2023-0320

2

Shoot the Moon Bingo; Just the Right Time, Inc.; TL Nguyen,

LLC; and City of Midfield

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division

(CV-23-29)

_________________________

SC-2023-0315

_________________________

State of Alabama

v.

Super Highway Bingo; Fairfield Industrial High School Alumni 

Association; Donovan Parker; Brighton Holding Group #2, LLC; 

and City of Brighton

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division

(CV-23-30)

_________________________

SC-2023-0316

_________________________

State of Alabama

v.

Jay's Charity Bingo; Alabama STEM Education, Inc.; Abdulahe 

Jamal; and City of Brighton

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division

(CV-23-31)
SC-2023-0313; SC-2023-0314; SC-2023-0315; SC-2023-0316; SC-2023-

0317; SC-2023-0318; SC-2023-0319; SC-2023-0320

3

_________________________

SC-2023-0317

_________________________

State of Alabama

v.

Paradise Bingo; Center for Rural Family Development; Virginia 

Kaye White; and City of Brighton

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division

(CV-23-32)

_________________________

SC-2023-0318

_________________________

State of Alabama

v.

Magic City Bingo; Fairfield Industrial High School Alumni 

Association; AB & J Baker Properties, LLC; and City of Fairfield

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division

(CV-23-33)

_________________________

SC-2023-0319

_________________________

State of Alabama
SC-2023-0313; SC-2023-0314; SC-2023-0315; SC-2023-0316; SC-2023-

0317; SC-2023-0318; SC-2023-0319; SC-2023-0320

4

v.

Kings & Queens Bingo; Sparkle Theatre Productions, Inc.; 

Birmingham Partners, Ltd.; and City of Fairfield

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division

(CV-23-37)

_________________________

SC-2023-0320

_________________________

State of Alabama

v.

Legion Bingo; Bachar Schlomo; American Legion Post No. 347; 

and City of Fairfield

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division

(CV-23-38)

BRYAN, Justice.

The State of Alabama appeals from judgments of the Bessemer 

Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court ("the Bessemer Division")

dissolving eight temporary restraining orders ("TROs") entered by the 

Birmingham Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court ("the Birmingham 

Division") and dismissing the actions in which the TROs were entered. 
SC-2023-0313; SC-2023-0314; SC-2023-0315; SC-2023-0316; SC-2023-

0317; SC-2023-0318; SC-2023-0319; SC-2023-0320

5

For the reasons explained below, we reverse the Bessemer Division's 

judgments and remand the actions for further proceedings.

Background

On April 10, 2023, the State initiated in the Birmingham Division

14 separate actions regarding allegedly illegal gambling facilities located 

in Jefferson County. These consolidated appeals pertain to only 8 of the 

14 actions. Therefore, the records for only those eight actions are before 

this Court in these appeals, and the following summary relates to only 

those eight actions. 

In each of its complaints, the State asserted only a public-nuisance 

claim, and, in each complaint, the State sought permanent injunctive 

relief. According to the State's complaints, the defendants consist of

certain businesses, nonprofit organizations, property owners, and 

municipalities who are responsible for the operation of illegal gambling 

activities.1

1The defendants in the various actions are as follows: appeal no. 

SC-2023-0313 -- Jay's Charity Bingo, Alabama STEM Education, Inc., 

and Bobby R. St. John; appeal no. SC-2023-0314 -- Shoot the Moon Bingo,

Just the Right Time, Inc., TL Nguyen, LLC, and the City of Midfield;

appeal no. SC-2023-0315 -- Super Highway Bingo, the Fairfield

Industrial High School Alumni Association, Donovan Parker, Brighton
SC-2023-0313; SC-2023-0314; SC-2023-0315; SC-2023-0316; SC-2023-

0317; SC-2023-0318; SC-2023-0319; SC-2023-0320

6

That same day, upon motions filed by the State, the Birmingham 

Division entered in each action an ex parte TRO prohibiting the 

defendants from taking certain actions and requiring them to take other 

actions. After conducting a hearing, the Birmingham Division entered 

an order in each action transferring the action to the Bessemer Division 

and extending the TRO entered in the action.

After the actions were transferred to the Bessemer Division, the 

State filed a motion in each action requesting a hearing to determine 

whether a preliminary injunction should be entered. However, on May 

4, 2023, the Bessemer Division entered a judgment in each action 

concluding, in relevant part, that the Birmingham Division had lacked 

jurisdiction to enter the TROs; the Bessemer Division's judgments

Holding Group #2, LLC, and the City of Brighton; appeal no. SC-2023-

0316 -- Jay's Charity Bingo, Alabama STEM Education, Inc., Abdulahe

Jamal, and the City of Brighton; appeal no. SC-2023-0317 -- Paradise

Bingo, the Center for Rural Family Development, Virginia Kaye White,

and the City of Brighton; appeal no. SC-2023-0318 -- Magic City Bingo,

the Fairfield Industrial High School Alumni Association, AB & J Baker

Properties, LLC, and the City of Fairfield; appeal no. SC-2023-0319 --

Kings & Queens Bingo, Sparkle Theatre Productions, Inc., Birmingham

Partners, Ltd., and the City of Fairfield; and appeal no. SC-2023-0320 --

Legion Bingo, Bachar Schlomo, American Legion Post No. 347, and the

City of Fairfield.
SC-2023-0313; SC-2023-0314; SC-2023-0315; SC-2023-0316; SC-2023-

0317; SC-2023-0318; SC-2023-0319; SC-2023-0320

7

directed that the TROs be dissolved. The judgments also dismissed each 

respective action. The State appealed from each judgment. This Court 

consolidated the appeals.

Analysis

On appeal, the State does not dispute that the eight actions arose 

within the territorial boundaries of the Bessemer Division. However, the 

State argues that the Bessemer Division erred by concluding that the 

Birmingham Division had lacked jurisdiction over the actions and by

dismissing the actions. Before turning to the State's arguments, 

however, we must first address a motion to dismiss that has been filed 

by the City of Midfield in appeal no. SC-2023-0314.

The City of Midfield argues that this Court should dismiss appeal

no. SC-2023-0314 because, it argues, the State did not timely submit a 

transcript-purchase-order form requesting the preparation and 

completion of the record on appeal. As the City of Midfield acknowledges, 

however, after submission of the State's order form, the Bessemer 

Division granted a request for an extension of time filed by the court 

reporter to complete the record on appeal. Rule 11, Ala. R. App. P., 

authorizes trial courts to grant such extensions. 
SC-2023-0313; SC-2023-0314; SC-2023-0315; SC-2023-0316; SC-2023-

0317; SC-2023-0318; SC-2023-0319; SC-2023-0320

8

Moreover, although the City of Midfield filed an opposition to the 

extension of time in the Bessemer Division, the Bessemer Division 

nevertheless granted the extension. The City of Midfield does not argue 

that the Bessemer Division exceeded its discretion under Rule 11 by

granting the extension. "We have unequivocally stated that it is not the 

function of this Court to do a party's legal research or to make and 

address legal arguments for a party based on undelineated general 

propositions not supported by sufficient authority or argument." Dykes 

v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So. 2d 248, 251 (Ala. 1994). 

Additionally, we discern no prejudice to the City of Midfield 

regarding this issue. After the records in these appeals were eventually 

completed, this Court set a new briefing schedule for the parties. Despite 

that new schedule, the City of Midfield failed to submit a timely brief to 

this Court and, instead, filed an untimely brief and a contemporaneous 

motion for an extension of time to submit the brief. This Court's clerk 

conditionally granted the extension pending further review by the Court. 

In light of the foregoing, we have, by separate order, granted the City of 

Midfield's motion for an extension of time to submit its untimely 

appellate brief but denied its motion to dismiss appeal no. SC-2023-0314.
SC-2023-0313; SC-2023-0314; SC-2023-0315; SC-2023-0316; SC-2023-

0317; SC-2023-0318; SC-2023-0319; SC-2023-0320

9

We now turn to the State's appellate arguments. In its judgments, 

the Bessemer Division based its determination that the Birmingham 

Division had lacked jurisdiction over the actions on Act No. 213, Ala. 

Local Acts 1919 ("the Bessemer Act"). Section 2 of the Bessemer Act 

states:

"The said Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, holding 

at Bessemer, as in this Act provided, shall have, exercise and 

possess all of the jurisdiction and powers which are now or 

which may hereafter be conferred by law on the several 

Circuit Courts of this State, which said jurisdiction and 

powers shall be exclusive in, limited to, and extend over that 

portion of the County of Jefferson, which is included in the 

following precincts, to-wit: [physical description of the 

property included within the Bessemer Division] and from 

and over the above mentioned and described territory all 

jurisdiction and powers heretofore or now exercised or 

existing therein by the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial 

Circuit, as now held at Birmingham, is hereby expressly 

excluded."

(Emphasis added.) 

The State argues that, under this Court's precedent, the Bessemer 

Division clearly erred in determining that the Birmingham Division had 

lacked jurisdiction over the eight actions. In Ex parte Ford Motor Co., 73 

So. 3d 597, 601-02 (Ala. 2011), this Court stated that, 

"[d]espite the reference to 'jurisdiction' in § 2 of the 

Bessemer Act, this Court has for many years interpreted that 
SC-2023-0313; SC-2023-0314; SC-2023-0315; SC-2023-0316; SC-2023-

0317; SC-2023-0318; SC-2023-0319; SC-2023-0320

10

term as used in the Act to refer instead to venue. ' "[T]he 

Bessemer ... Act ... should be read as venue legislation rather 

than jurisdiction legislation ...."' Ex parte Flexible Prods. Co., 

961 So. 2d 111, 114 (Ala. 2006)(quoting Ex parte Jackson, 516 

So. 2d 768, 769 (Ala. 1986))."

"[T]he primary purpose of the Bessemer Act is to determine in which 

division venue in Jefferson County is proper." Id. at 604.

In Glenn v. Wilson, 455 So. 2d 2, 4 (Ala. 1984), this Court explained: 

"[S]uits 'arising in' the geographical boundaries of the 

Bessemer Cutoff but filed in Birmingham (or, vice versa, suits 

'arising in' the Birmingham Division but filed in Bessemer) 

are subject to transfer to the proper division pursuant to the 

provisions of § 12-11-11, [Ala.] Code 1975. That statute, first 

adopted in 1915, reads as follows:

"'Whenever it shall appear to the court that 

any case filed therein should have been brought in 

another court in the same county, the court shall 

make an order transferring the case to the proper 

court, and the clerk or register shall forthwith 

certify the pleadings, process, costs and order to 

the court to which the case is transferred, and the 

case shall be docketed and proceed in the court to 

which it is transferred, and the costs accrued in 

the court in which the case was originally filed 

shall abide by the result of the case in the court to 

which transferred.'

"The Bessemer [Act] does not diminish the general 

jurisdiction of other circuit courts, either in Jefferson or other 

counties."

(Emphasis added.)
SC-2023-0313; SC-2023-0314; SC-2023-0315; SC-2023-0316; SC-2023-

0317; SC-2023-0318; SC-2023-0319; SC-2023-0320

11

Thus, under this Court's precedent, the Bessemer Division erred by 

concluding that the Birmingham Division had lacked jurisdiction over 

the eight actions at issue in these appeals. Upon determining that the 

Bessemer Division was the proper venue for the actions, the Birmingham 

Division correctly transferred the actions to the Bessemer Division

pursuant to § 12-11-11, Ala. Code 1975. Moreover, pursuant to § 12-11-

11, upon the proper transfer of the actions to the Bessemer Division, the 

actions should have "proceed[ed]" in the Bessemer Division. Therefore, 

the Bessemer Division erred by dismissing the actions based on the 

Birmingham Division's supposed lack of jurisdiction, and its judgments

in that regard are reversed.

Not all the defendants have filed appellate briefs in this Court. 

However, of the briefs submitted by the defendants, none articulate a 

cogent argument demonstrating that the Bessemer Division properly 

dismissed the actions. However, some of the defendants argue, for 

various reasons, that the Birmingham Division lacked the authority to 

grant the State's ex parte motions for TROs in the first instance and that 

the Birmingham Division lacked the authority to extend the duration of 

the TROs upon its decision to transfer the actions to the Bessemer 
SC-2023-0313; SC-2023-0314; SC-2023-0315; SC-2023-0316; SC-2023-

0317; SC-2023-0318; SC-2023-0319; SC-2023-0320

12

Division. We conclude that those issues are now moot because the ex 

parte TROs have expired. See, e.g., Cochran v. CIS Fin. Servs., Inc., 375 

So. 3d 800, 811 (Ala. 2022)("[T]hat date has already passed, and this 

Court is consequently powerless to grant ... relief from that injunction."). 

Moreover, even assuming -- without deciding -- that the TROs were 

issued in error, the defendants have cited no authority supporting the 

notion that such an error would justify the complete dismissal of the 

actions by the Bessemer Division.

Instead, the pertinent question at this stage in these proceedings is 

whether preliminary injunctions are warranted. See Rule 65(b), Ala. R. 

Civ. P. ("In case a temporary restraining order is granted without notice, 

the motion for a preliminary injunction shall be set down for hearing at 

the earliest possible time and takes precedence of all matters except older 

matters of the same character ...." (emphasis added)). As noted above, 

upon transfer of the actions to the Bessemer Division, the State filed 

motions seeking preliminary injunctions and requesting a hearing 

regarding those motions. As also mentioned, § 12-11-11 provides that

transferred actions "shall be docketed and proceed in the court to which 

[they are] transferred." Rather than consider the State's motions for 
SC-2023-0313; SC-2023-0314; SC-2023-0315; SC-2023-0316; SC-2023-

0317; SC-2023-0318; SC-2023-0319; SC-2023-0320

13

preliminary injunctions, however, the Bessemer Division erroneously 

dismissed the actions altogether.

Conclusion

The Bessemer Division erroneously dismissed the actions based on 

an incorrect conclusion that the Birmingham Division had lacked 

jurisdiction over the actions. In accordance with this Court's precedent, 

the Birmingham Division properly transferred the actions to the 

Bessemer Division upon concluding that the Bessemer Division is the 

proper venue for the actions. Therefore, contrary to the apparent 

conclusion reached in its judgments, the Bessemer Division properly has 

jurisdiction over the actions and, under Rule 65(b) and § 12-11-11, is 

required to conduct a hearing regarding the State's motions for 

preliminary injunctions. 

Thus, the Bessemer Division's judgments of dismissal are reversed, 

and the eight actions are hereby remanded to the Bessemer Division for 

further proceedings consistent with this Court's decision. In particular, 

on remand, the Bessemer Division is hereby directed to conduct a hearing 

regarding the State's motions for preliminary injunctions "at the earliest 
SC-2023-0313; SC-2023-0314; SC-2023-0315; SC-2023-0316; SC-2023-

0317; SC-2023-0318; SC-2023-0319; SC-2023-0320

14

possible time" and in accordance with all other requirements of Rule 

65(b).

SC-2023-0313 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH 

INSTRUCTIONS.

SC-2023-0314 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH 

INSTRUCTIONS.

SC-2023-0315 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH 

INSTRUCTIONS.

SC-2023-0316 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH 

INSTRUCTIONS.

SC-2023-0317 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH 

INSTRUCTIONS.

SC-2023-0318 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH 

INSTRUCTIONS.

SC-2023-0319 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH 

INSTRUCTIONS.
SC-2023-0313; SC-2023-0314; SC-2023-0315; SC-2023-0316; SC-2023-

0317; SC-2023-0318; SC-2023-0319; SC-2023-0320

15

SC-2023-0320 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH 

INSTRUCTIONS.

Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, Stewart, 

Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., concur.