IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES K. BRELAND, JR., 

OSPREY UTAH, LLC, WATER 

CANYON HOLDINGS, LLC, RANGE 

CREEK HOLDINGS, LLC, and 

UTAH REVERSE EXCHANGE, LLC,

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0158-CG-C

)

LEVADA EF FIVE, LLC )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

The above-styled action came on for trial by jury on February 1, 2, and 3, 

2016, before United States District Judge Callie V. S. Granade. The jury was 

selected before Judge Granade on February 1, 2016.

On February 1, 2016, prior to jury selection, the Court held an in-camera

hearing with counsel, at which the court made the following rulings for the reasons 

as set forth on the record:

Plaintiffs’ orally moved to renew their motion to consolidate actions and 

continue trial (Doc. 161). The Court advised that the motion would be taken under 

submission once a written motion was filed.1

Plaintiffs’ oral motion in limine to preclude admission of defendant’s exhibits 

7 and 8 to be taken up at time offered.2

 1

Motion is DENIED as MOOT. 2

Motion is DENIED as to Exhibit 8, and deemed to be MOOT as to Exhibit 7 since said 

Case 1:14-cv-00158-CG-C Document 173 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Defendant’s oral motion in limine to preclude plaintiffs from introducing an 

Invoice from Reed and Smith as an exhibit to be taken up at the time such exhibit is 

offered.3

The jury was then duly sworn, and trial commenced. Plaintiffs presented 

their case-in-chief on February 1 and 2, 2016, and rested on February 2, 2016. At 

the close of the plaintiffs’ case the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of 

law (Doc. 163) was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part for the reasons as set 

forth on the record.

On February 2, 2016, defendant presented its case and rested. At the close of 

all the evidence, the Court DENIED the plaintiffs’ oral motion for judgment as a 

matter of law on the nonpayment of property taxes (Doc. 169); DENIED Plaintiffs’ 

oral motion for judgment as a matter of law as to defendant’s counter-claims (Doc. 

167); DENIED defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law at the 

conclusion of all the evidence (Doc. 164); and DENIED plaintiffs’ oral motion for 

judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence (Doc. 168).

On February 3, 2016, the court held a charge conference with counsel, the 

respective parties presented their closing arguments to the jury, the court charged 

the jury on the applicable law, and the jury commenced their deliberations.

 

exhibit was not offered. 

3

Motion is deemed to be MOOT since no such exhibit was offered.

Now, on the 3rd day of February, comes the jury who having heard the 

evidence, the arguments of counsel, the charge of the court and having considered 

the same upon their oaths, return their verdict (a copy of which is attached hereto) 

Case 1:14-cv-00158-CG-C Document 173 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 3
3

into open court with counsel present.

Post trial motions are to be filed no later than March 4, 2016. Any 

responses to said motions shall be filed no later than March 11, 2016. 

A judgment will be entered separately in accordance with the verdict of the 

jury after the court determines the issue regarding attorneys’ fees.

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00158-CG-C Document 173 Filed 02/03/16 Page 3 of 3