Opinion ID: 2487791
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stallings and Coggin

Text: We now address Roberts's arguments with regard to the summary judgments in favor of Stallings and Coggin. Although Stallings and Coggin filed separate summary-judgment motions in the circuit court, Roberts alleges the same error and makes the same arguments as to both. Roberts argues that the summary-judgment motions filed by Stallings and Coggin [were] not in conformity with Rule 56, Ala. R. Civ. P., [and,] therefore, the burden never shifted to Roberts to produce substantial evidence to defeat the motion[s]. Accordingly, the summary judgment[s] [were] due to be summarily denied and the trial court erred to reversal in granting the motion[s]. Roberts's brief, at 62. We agree. As Roberts notes, Rule 56(c)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., provides, in pertinent part: The [summary-judgment] motion shall be supported by a narrative summary of what the movant contends to be the undisputed material facts; that narrative summary may be set forth in the motion or may be attached as an exhibit. The narrative summary shall be supported by specific references to pleadings, portions of discovery materials, or affidavits and may include citations to legal authority. Stallings's summary-judgment motion stated, in its entirety: Defendant, Rodney Loring Stallings, moves the Court to enter, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, a summary judgment in the Defendant's favor dismissing the action on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the Defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. This motion is based upon the pleadings, the depositions of the parties and upon the failure of the Plaintiff to provide to the Defendant the name of any expert which she expects to call in support of the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant. The Defendant adopts the brief and argument submitted by the co-defendant, Steve Lanier, in support of his motion for summary judgment. Coggin's summary-judgment motion similarly provided, in its entirety: COMES NOW, Coggin & Stallings, LLC, (dissolved), and request[s] the Court to enter, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, a summary judgment in its favor dismissing the action on the ground that there is no genuine issue [of] material fact and Defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. This motion is based upon the pleadings, the depositions of the parties, and upon the absence of any expert testimony to establish that the Defendant failed to meet the standard of care for rendering legal services in Alabama. Defendant respectfully adopts the brief and argument of Co-Defendant, Steve Lanier, in support of its summary judgment motion. Neither Stallings's motion nor Coggin's motion contains any statement of facts or any discussion of Roberts's claims. This Court has stated: `The [summary-judgment] movant has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact; if the movant makes that showing, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to present substantial evidence of each element of the claim challenged by the movant. ' Harper v. Winston County, 892 So.2d 346, 349 (Ala.2004) (emphasis added). However, if the movant does not satisfy his initial burden, `then he is not entitled to judgment. No defense to an insufficient showing is required .' Ray v. Midfield Park, Inc., 293 Ala. 609, 612, 308 So.2d 686, 688 (1975) (emphasis added). `A motion that does not comply with Rule 56(c)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] does not require a response in defense from the nonmovant.' Horn v. Fadal Machining Ctrs., LLC, 972 So.2d 63, 70 (Ala.2007). Simply stated, `[a] summary judgment is not proper if the movant has not complied with the requirements of Rule 56.' 972 So.2d at 70 (quoting Northwest Florida Truss, Inc. v. Baldwin County Comm'n, 782 So.2d 274, 277 (Ala.2000)). White Sands Group, L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC, 998 So.2d 1042, 1054-55 (Ala.2008). Coggin argues that its summary-judgment motion complied with Rule 56(c) because it attached to its motion the brief and argument of Lanier, together with all submissions and referenced depositions of all parties, Coggin's brief, at 11, and incorporated them by reference. [11] However, as Roberts notes, the Lanier defendants made no mention in their summary-judgment motion of Roberts's claims against Stallings or Coggin, nor did they present any facts or arguments related to these claims. Merely incorporating by reference a motion that included no mention of, or facts or arguments related to, the claims against them was insufficient to bring Stallings's and Coggin's motions into compliance with Rule 56(c). A summary-judgment movant does not discharge his initial burden to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of a nonmovant's claim by simply ignoring the claim. White Sands, 998 So.2d at 1055. A summary judgment is not proper if the movant has not complied with the requirements of Rule 56. Northwest Florida Truss, Inc. v. Baldwin County Comm'n, 782 So.2d 274, 277 (Ala. 2000). Therefore, the circuit court erred in entering summary judgments in favor of Stallings and Coggin. We reverse those judgments and remand the case for further proceedings.