UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WM MOBILE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL )

CENTER, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

V. ) CASE NO. 13-0434-KD-N

)

THE CITY OF MOBILE SOLID WASTE )

AUTHORITY, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER 

This action is before the Court on the Plaintiff WM Mobile Bay Environmental Center, 

Inc.’s oral motion to sever Count XI for declaratory judgment, The City of Mobile Solid Waste 

Authority’s oral motion for judgment as a matter of law as to Count XI, and the parties additional 

briefing (docs. 157, 164, 165). 

In Count XI, in relevant part, WM Mobile Bay “demands a declaratory judgment that [it] 

is entitled to an increased disposal . . . rate in an amount to be determined by this Court and that 

Defendant is obligated to negotiate in good faith in response to WM Mobile Bay’s requests for 

rate adjustments and reimbursements.” (Doc. 29, p. 20-21) WM Mobile Bay demanded a jury 

trial. (Id., p. 21) The Authority demanded a jury trial in its answer and counterclaim (Doc. 6). 

A. WM Mobile Bay’s motion to sever Count XI.

An issue arose at trial as to whether the Court or the jury was the proper entity to declare 

that WM Mobile Bay is entitled to an increased disposal rate and to determine what that rate 

should be. The Court indicated that it would make that declaration under its equitable powers but 

would include a question for the jury as to the current appropriate rate in the verdict form. The 

Case 1:13-cv-00434-KD-N Document 172 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 5
2

Court indicated that the jury’s answer would be advisory. WM Mobile Bay did not object. The 

Authority objected and argued that a declaration as to the increased disposal rate is based on 

what is reasonable and that any aspect of Count XI that calls for a determination of 

reasonableness is a question of fact for the jury to determine. The Authority pointed out that 

both parties had made jury demands. After discussion, WM Mobile Bay moved to sever Count 

XI for decision by the Court. The Court took the motion under advisement and received 

additional briefing. (Docs. 157, 164)

WM Mobile Bay brings Count XI pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Federal Declaratory 

Judgment Act1 and Ala. Code § 6-6-223, the Alabama Declaratory Judgment Act.2 Under both 

Acts, the Court may declare the rights, obligations, and legal relations of the parties to the 

Operating Agreement. Declaring that WM Mobile is entitled to an increased disposal rate and 

the current appropriate rate to be paid in the future falls within the scope of the Acts.

The issue now before the Court is whether the declaration of an increased disposal rate is 

a legal issue for the jury or an equitable determination for the Court. WM Mobile argues that the 

declaratory relief it seeks is equitable in nature, that the parties are not entitled to a jury trial on 

this issue, and that the Court should determine the proper interpretation of Section 6.6 (doc. 157). 

The Authority argues that declaratory judgment actions are not inherently legal or 

 1

 The statute sets forth in relevant part as follows: “In a case of actual controversy within its 

jurisdiction, . . . any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may 

declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, 

whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and 

effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). 

2

 The statute sets forth in relevant part as follows: “Any person interested under a . . . written 

contract, or other writings constituting a contract or whose rights, status, or other legal relations 

are affected by a . . . contract, . . . may have determined any question of construction or validity 

arising under the . . . contract, . . . and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal 

relations thereunder.” Ala. Code § 6-6-223. 

Case 1:13-cv-00434-KD-N Document 172 Filed 02/06/15 Page 2 of 5
3

equitable in nature but depend upon how the issues would have arisen if the Declaratory 

Judgment Act had not been enacted. The Authority argues that absent the Act, WM Mobile 

Bay’s claims would have arisen as a breach of contract action, which is a legal action triable to 

the jury. Thus, the jury should determine whether WM Mobile Bay is entitled to an increase and 

the amount of that increase instead of the Court exercising equitable jurisdiction. 

Alternatively, the Authority argues that if the Court determines that the demand for 

declaratory judgment is an equitable action, the Court’s determination must be resolved based on 

the jury’s findings. The Authority argues that the facts applicable to Count XI are the same facts 

applicable to WM Mobile Bay’s breach of contract claim and that whether WM Mobile Bay is 

entitled to an increased rate will be determined by the jury when it considers the breach of 

contract claim. 

In “determining whether a declaratory judgment action is legal or equitable,” the Court 

has “examined the basic nature of the issues involved to determine how they would have arisen 

had Congress not enacted the Declaratory Judgment Act.” Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Arnold, 809 F.2d 

1520, 1523 (11th Cir.1987) (footnote omitted). The “basic nature of the issue[] involved” in 

Count XI is a determination as to whether WM Mobile Bay is entitled to an increased disposal 

rate and the amount of that rate. 

This issue does not arise in the breach of contract claim. In Count I, WM Mobile Bay 

alleged that the Authority breached the contract by failing to negotiate in response to WM 

Mobile Bay’s request for price adjustments and as a result WM Mobile Bay was damaged “in 

that it incurred increased costs in the management and operation of the subject landfill without 

receiving a corresponding price adjustment pursuant to the terms of the” Operating Agreement. 

(Doc. 29, p. 10) WM Mobile Bay sought damages for “the increased costs of managing the 

Case 1:13-cv-00434-KD-N Document 172 Filed 02/06/15 Page 3 of 5
4

subject landfill in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact”. (Id) The jury has resolved all 

issues of fact relevant to the breach of contract claim in Count I. However, in resolving that 

claim, the jury was not required to determine a current appropriate disposal rate. 

Upon consideration of the parties’ oral argument during trial and their respective 

additional briefing (docs. 157, 164), and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that the 

declaratory relief that WM Mobile seeks is equitable in nature and therefore, not an issue for the 

jury. The Court further finds that a declaration of an appropriate current disposal rate is not a 

question of fact or legal issue for the jury to determine but instead is within the Court’s equitable 

jurisdiction to declare, but the jury’s determination of a current appropriate disposal rate, $27.39, 

will be considered as an advisory opinion. Therefore, the motion to sever this portion of Count 

XI for determination by the Court is GRANTED. 

The Court determines that $25.433 is an appropriate current disposal rate. The Court 

started its determination with the parties’ last negotiated rate in 2010. The Court finds this to be 

an equitable starting point because the parties abided by Section 1.31 in the Operating 

Agreement and negotiated “consistent with standards of good faith and fair dealings” (doc. 29-1, 

p. 16) and came to a mutual agreement as to the disposal rate. The Court finds the Consumer 

Price Index to be an appropriate gauge for the increase each year from 2010. Starting with the 

negotiated rate in 2010, $23.50, and applying the annual maximum multiplier based on the C.P.I. 

(see Section 6.6 of the Operating Agreement), the rates increase to $25.43.

 3 2010 $23.50 x 1.1 = $.26; $23.50 + $.26 = $23.76

2011 $23.76 x 3.8 = $.90; $23.76 + $.90 = $24.66

2012 $24.66 x 1.6 = $.39; $24.66 + $.39 = $25.05

2013 $25.05 x 1.5 = $.36; $25.05 + $.38 = $25.43 

2014 $25.43

Case 1:13-cv-00434-KD-N Document 172 Filed 02/06/15 Page 4 of 5
5

B. The Authority’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to Count XI.

At the close of all evidence, the Authority renewed and clarified its motion for judgment 

as a matter of law as to Count XI. The Authority argued that the count should be dismissed on 

basis that WM Mobile has no right to equitable declaratory relief because it has an adequate 

remedy at law, a breach of contract action. (Doc. 165) The Authority argues that if WM Mobile 

makes future requests for increases, and feels that it is treated wrongly, it may sue for breach of 

contract at that time. 

The Authority’s motion is directed in part toward the portion of Count XI wherein WM 

Mobile demands declaratory judgment that the Authority “is obligated to negotiate in good faith 

in response to WM Mobile Bay’s request for rate adjustment and reimbursements” (Doc. 165). 

As to that demand, the motion for judgment as a matter of law is due to be granted. The 

Authority is correct that should the Authority fail to negotiate future rate increases in good faith, 

a breach of contract action is an adequate remedy at law. However, to the extent that the 

Authority’s motion is directed toward WM Mobile Bay’s demand for declaratory judgment that 

it is presently entitled to an increased disposal rate in an amount to be determined by the Court, 

the motion is denied on basis that that issue has been resolved herein. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 6th day of February 2015.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00434-KD-N Document 172 Filed 02/06/15 Page 5 of 5