FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 4, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 13 93 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 58 5- CV-UWC BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UN IVERSITY OF ALABAMA, Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r-Defe nd an t-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us NEW LIFE ART, INC., DANIEL A. MOORE, Defen dant s- Co un te r-Cl ai m an ts -Ap pe ll ees , ve rs us ROBERT E. W ITT, Pres id en t, Un iv ers ity

of Al ab am a, FINUS P. GASTON, Co un te r-Defe nd an ts -Ap pe ll an ts .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jun e 4 , 20 09 ) Befo re WILSON, KRAVITCH an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

App el lant s, the Bo ardof Tru st ees of t he Uni ve rs ity of Al ab am a (“ th e Bo ard ”), Ro be rt E. Witt , andFin us P. Gast on ap pe al fro m th e d is tri ctco urt’s J un e 10 , 20 08 ord er s tri ki ng th e aff irmativ e d efen se s i n t he ir R ep ly to Co un te rcl ai m . App el lant s Wittan d Gas to n a ls o app eal fro m th e d is tri ctco urt’s J ul y

2, 2 00 8 o rd er st rik in g the ir s umm ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Fo r th e rea so ns de sc rib edbe lo w, we affi rm th e Ju ne 10 th ord er s tri ki ng App el lant s’ affi rm at iv e d efen se s, b utwe va cat e th e Ju ly 2ndord er s tri ki ng W it t an d Gas to n’s s umm ary jud gm en t m ot io n a nd rem an d t o the di stric t co urt fo r co ns id erat io n o f th e su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. 1

Wit t and Gaston a sserted state ag ent immunity as an a ffirmative defe nse in both 1 the Reply to Counterclaim, struck on June 10, 2008, and in the summary judgme nt motion, struck on Jul y

2, 2008. The de nial of state a g ent immunity under A labama la

w is immediately appea lable to this Court. Taylor v. Adams, 221 F .3d 1254, 1260 n.9 (11th Cir. 2000); Sheth v. Webster, 145 F.3d 1231, 1238 ( 11th Cir. 1998). The dismissal of an immunity defe nse on grounds of untimeliness is immediately appea lable bec ause it denie s the defe ndant the bene fit of immunity from suit. McElroy

v. City of Mac on, 68 F.3d 437, 438 n.* ( 11th Cir. 1995); Hill v. Deka lb Reg ’l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F .3d 1176, 1183-84 (11th Cir. 1994), a brog ated on other grounds by

Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739, 122 S. Ct. 2508, 2515 (2002). The June 10th order striking the Re ply

to Counterclaim and the July 2nd order

striking the summar

y judgme nt motion constituted a de nial of Wittand Ga ston’s asserte d state ag ent immunity defe nse on proce dural grounds. We there fore have jurisdiction over the strikingof the state ag ent immunity defe nses in the J une 10th and July 2nd order s. Be cause the issues on appe al with respe ct to whether the district court a

bused its discretion in the J une 10th and July 2nd order s are the same with reg ard to a ll of the defe nses struck by those order s, we c onclude that a ll of the defe nses raised in the Re ply

to Counterclaim and in the summary judgme nt motion are inextricably intertwined with the state a g ent immunity defe nse for

the purposes of

this appeal. The ref

ore, w e have pe ndent appe llate jurisdiction over the e ntirety of the June 10th and J uly 2nd order s. Swint v. Chambers County

Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 115 S . Ct. 1203 (1995); Summ it Med. Assocs., P.C. v. Pryor, 180 F .3d 1326, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999). Acc ording ly , Appellee s’ motion to dis miss thi s appea l for lac k of jurisdiction is DENI ED. 2I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Dis tri ctco urts “ en

joy bro addi sc ret io n i n d eci di ng ho w bes t t o m an ag e th e cas es be fo re the m .” Chud as am a v . Mazd a Mo to r Co rp ., 12 3 F .3d13 53 , 13 66 (11 th Ci r. 19 97 ). “ [W] e wil l re ve rs e th e tr ia l co urt’s d eci si on to fol lo w th e p re-t ria l o rd er on ly whe re the tri al co urt h as so cle arl y ab us edit s d is cret io n t ha t i ts act io n c ou ld be de em edarb itrary.” Morr o v . Cit y of B irming ha m , 11 7 F .3d50 8, 5 13 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . II. DISCUS SION A. Ju ne 10 th Orde r Strik in g t he Affirm at iv e Defen se s i n t he Rep ly to Co un te rcl ai m The pre tri al co nf

eren ce i n t hi s ca se was h el d o n J un e 9 , 20 08 ; the pre tri al or de r was en te redon Ju ne 10 , 20 08 . Also on Ju ne 10 , th e Bo ard , W it t, an d Gas to n fil edth ei r fi rs t re sp on si ve pl ead in g t o Ap pe ll ees Dani el A. Moo re an d New Li fe Art’s (h erei na fte r “ th e Mo or e d efen da nt s” ) co un te rcl ai m , inwhi chth e App el lant s as se rte d fi fty-ni ne affi rm at iv e d efen se s, i nc lu di ng “ so ve rei gn , qu al ifi ed , abs ol ut e, di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n i m

m un ity , andst at e ag en t i m

m un ity .” On the same day , th e di st ric t co urt s uasp on te stru ckall of t he affi rm at iv e d efen se s as un ti m el y be cau se , am on g o th er re as on s, the affi rm at iv e d efen se s “ are n otin cl ud edinth e Co un te r Defen da nt s’ Sta te m en t o f Po si ti on inPretria l Ord er s ub m it te d jo in tl y by the

3pa rti es .”

The di stric t co urt h as bro addi sc ret io n wi th res pe ctto in te rp ret at io n a nd en fo rcem en t o f th e p retria l o rd er. “ W e are no t i nc li ne d t o d is tu rb th e d is tri ct co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f a s ti pu la ti on ag reedup on by the pa rti es du rin g p retria l pr oc eed in gs an d app ro ve d b y th e co urt.” Ho dg es v. Un it edSta te s, 5 97 F.2d10 14 , 10 17 (5t h C ir. 1 97 9) (up ho ld in g adi st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f a p retria l o rd er as ba rri ng a de fen se th atth e d efen da ntatt em pt edto ass ertat t ria l). Th e p retria l or de r in th is cas e d idno t re fere nc e an y of t he affi rm at iv e d efen se s as se rte d b y th e Bo ard , W it t, an d Gas to n i n the ir R ep ly to Co un te rcl ai m , no r di d i t re fere nc e th ei r in te nt io n t o fi le th e Rep ly to Co un te rcl ai m an d t he affi rm at iv e d efen se s. Whil e th e ti min g a ndco m

pl ex ity of t he pro cedur al hi st ory inth is cas e m ak es th is a fai rly cl os e is su e, we can no t co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n in te rp ret in g the pre tri al ord er as ba rri ng th e Rep ly to Co un te rcl ai m an d co ns eque nt ly stri ki ng th e aff irmativ e d efen se s. B. Ju ly 2ndOrde r Strik in g t he Mo ti onforSu m m ary Ju dg m en t On J un e 1 1, 2 00 8, the da y aft er the di st ric t co urt en te redth e p retria l o rd er, W it t an d Gas to n fi le d am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t i n wh ic h the y ass ert eda st at e ag en t i m

m un ity de fen se as we ll as s ev eral ot he r affi rm at iv e d efen se s. Th e di st ric t co urt o rd ereda sh ow caus e h eari ng to de te rm in e whe th er i t s ho ul d i m po se 4sa nc ti on s o n Wit t an d Gas to n fo r fi li ng th ei r su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n i n co nt rav en ti on of t he pre tri al ord er. The di st ric t co urt d et erm in edaft er the sh ow cau se he ari ng th atno san ct io ns ag ai ns t Wittan d Gas to n wo ul d b e im po se d, b utth e di st ric t co urt s tru ckW it t an d Gas to n’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as un ti m el y on Ju ly 2, 20 08 . The di stric t co urt’s J ul y

2n d o rd er s tri ki ng th e su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n st at edon ly tha t the m ot io n was stru ckforbe in g u nt im el y . The co urt’s o rd er fo r a sh ow caus e h eari ng an d the tra ns cri ptof t ha t h eari ng rev eal th atth e d is tri ctco urt st ru ckth e m ot io n a s unt im el y be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt i nt erp ret edth e p retria l or de r as no t p ro vi di ng forW it t an d Gas to n t o fi le a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The pre tri al ord er, h owe ve r, cl earl y refer en cedth e su m

m ary jud gm en t m ot io n fi le d by W it t an d Gas to n o n J un e 1 1, 2 00 8 i n t he sec ti on he ad ed“ Co un te r-Defe nd an ts ’ Po si ti on .” Thi s s ect io n s ta te d: “ Co un te r-Defe nd an ts W it t an d Gas to n a ss ertth at th ey are en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t b as edonth e rea so ns setforth inth ei r m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t an d s up po rti ng m em or an du m of l aw.” The di st ric t co urt as su m edth atth is refe ren ce i n t he pre tri al ord er t o am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t was a refe ren ce t o am ot io n p rev io us ly file d b y th e Bo ard . The m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t b y

th e Bo ard , ho wev er, d idno t ad dr es s the co un te rcl ai m ag ai ns t Wittan d Gas to n n ordi d i t as se rt a ny defe ns es on th ei r be ha lf. Th us , itwas 5cl ear t ha t the refe ren ce i n the pre tri al ord er was no t t o t ha t p rev io us m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t b y

th e Bo ard . Giv enth e p la in lan gu ag e o f th e p retria l o rd er, an d t he factth atth e Bo ard ’s earl ie r m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t d idno t ad dr es s the cla im s ag ai ns t Wittan d Gas to n, the di st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e p retria l o rd er as no t p ro vi di ng for W it t an d Gas to n’s J un e 1 1, 2 00 8 s umm ary jud gm en t m ot io n was m is ta ke n. Furth erm or e, th e Mo or e d efen dant s h adam pl e n ot ic e o f W itt an d Gas to n’s i nt en t t o fil e a s umm ary jud gm en t m ot io n a ndto ass ertth e st at e ag en t i m m un ity de fen se . The Mo or e d efen dant s s ho ul d h av e kno wn tha t Wittan d Gas to n wo ul d fi le a m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t as se rti ng th e st at e ag en t i m m un ity de fen se an d o th er de fen se s fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s: 1) t he st at em en ts at t he Octo be r 20 05 he ari ng an d i n the di st ric t co urt’s No ve m be r 20 05 op in io n t ha t Wittan d Gas to n s ho ul d fi le a b rie f onst at e ag en t i m

m un ity ; 2 ) W it t an d Gas to n’s as se rti on inth ei r Ju ne 6, 20 08 Mo ti on to Str ik e th e Am en de d C ount ercl ai m th atth ey were en ti tl edto st at e ag en t i m m un ity ; 3 ) W itt an d Gas to n’s d ire ctst at em en t i n t he ir b rie f supp orti ng th ei r Mo ti on to Str ik e th e Am en de d C ou nt ercl ai m th atif the di st ric t co urt s tru ck th e am en de d c ount ercl ai m , th enth ey wou ldfil e a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t; an d 4 ) th e fac t tha t the pre tri al ord er s ta te d i n t he Co un te r-Defe nd an ts ’ Po si ti on th atW it t an d Gas to n s ou gh t s umm ary jud gm en t b as edon th ei r m ot io n fo r su m m ary 6jud gm en t. Whenth es e rea so ns are co m bi ne d wi th th e o bv io us factth atth e refe ren ce i n the pre tri al ord er t o am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t d idno t re fer t o th e p rev io us ly file d m ot io n b y th e Bo ard , itsh ou ldha ve be enap pa ren t t o t he Mo or e d efen dant s tha t Wittan d Gas to n wer e co nt em pl at in g fi li ng th e m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t tha t the y

fil edon June 11 , 20 08 . Also be cau se of t hi s ample no ti ce, the Mo or e d efen da nt s s uf fere d n o p reju di ce fr om

an y de lay inth e fi li ng of W it t an d Gas to n’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The di stric t co urt’s d is cret io n t o m an ag e th e cas es be fo re i t “ is no t un fet te red .” Chud as am a, 12 3 F .3dat 1 36 7. Thus , des pi te th e b ro addi sc ret io n gi ve n t o d is tri ctco urts inin te rp ret in g a nden fo rci ng th ei r pr etria l o rd ers , we co nc lu de th atth e o rd er s tri ki ng W it t an d Gas to n’s s umm ary jud gm en t m ot io n i s an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt was si m pl y m is ta ke n i n i ts in te rp ret at io n o f th e p retria l o rd er, b ecau se itsh ou ldha ve be enap pa ren t t o t he Mo or e d efen dant s tha t Wittan d Gas to n wo ul d fi le th e m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d b ecau se th e Mo or e d efen da nt s s uf fere d n o p reju di ce, we h ol d t ha t th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n s tri ki ng W it t an d Gas to n’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The refo re, we v acat e th e Ju ly 2, 20 08 ord er, an d re m an d fo r co ns id erat io n o f th e su m

m ary jud gm en t m ot io n. Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i n t he June 10 , 20 08 ord er 7(s tri ki ng App el lant s’ Rep ly to Co un te rcl ai m) is AFFIRM ED, bu t the jud gm en t o f

th e d is tri ctco urt i n the Ju ly 2, 20 08 ord er (s tri ki ng W it t an d Gas to n’s s umm ary jud gm en t m ot io n) is VACATED.

8