Fallin amended complaint - Cabela`s

DOCUMENT 82
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
3/18/2015 1:46 PM
47-CV-2014-902167.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA
JANE C. SMITH, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA
CARL E. FALLIN, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA;
ATTITUDE, LLC; CHICAGO TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2014-902167
FIRST SUPPLEMENTED AND AMENDED COMPLAINT
This action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against a municipality that has
granted, or is about to grant, public funds for a private retail business entity in violation of
the State Constitution, allegedly for economic development. These grants have occurred
without the public notice required by the Alabama Constitution by entering extraordinary
contracts and dramatically overpaying for certain related real property and then directing the
excess amounts to provide free land and improvements for a private entity. The action also
seeks relief to obtain public records in the possession of municipal officials related to this
grant of funds and to prevent the withholding of public records in the future.
The Parties
1.
Plaintiff Carl E. Fallin, Sr., is an individual resident citizen and pays taxes to
the City of Huntsville regularly. He operates a business within the City of Huntsville and
pays an annual tax which gives him the authority to conduct his business there.
DOCUMENT 82
2.
Defendant City of Huntsville, Alabama (“Huntsville”), is a municipal corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alabama.
3.
Defendant Attitude, L.L.C. (“Attitude”), is an Alabama limited liability
company engaged in the development and management of real property.
4.
Defendant Chicago Title Insurance Company is a corporation organized under
the laws of the State of Nebraska, and does business with Defendant Attitude in the State of
Alabama.
Jurisdiction and Venue
5.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
§ 142 of the Alabama Constitution and Ala. Code §§ 12-11-30, -31, and -33. Relief is
authorized by Ala. Code § 6-6-500, Ala. Code § 6-6-220, et seq., and Rules 57 and 65, Ala.
R. Civ. P.
6.
Venue is proper in this Court because Defendant Huntsville is located within
Madison County, Alabama; a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to this
action occurred in Madison County, Alabama; and the real property that is the subject of this
action is located within Madison County, Alabama.
I. Summary
7.
This action challenges Huntsville’s improper spending of public funds on a
project commonly known as “Parkside Town Centre” (“the Parkside Project”), which is the
proposed site for a Cabela’s, Inc. (“Cabela’s”), outdoor retail store in Huntsville. The
developers of the Parkside Project are James Packard; Attitude, L.L.C. (“Attitude”), and
2
DOCUMENT 82
Mushashi, LLC (“Mushashi”); and Mike Culbreath, a public official and member of the
Huntsville City School Board. The Parkside Project developers collectively are referred to
herein as “the Developers.”
8.
Huntsville and Attitude have entered into a series of extraordinary real estate
contracts and transactions whereby Huntsville has paid or will pay over $5.6 million to
Attitude to acquire property with a fair market value that is dramatically less than the amount
paid. The purpose of the excess payments is to direct public funds to Cabela’s private land
through Attitude--under the guise of purchasing properties for “infrastructure,” connected
with business recruitment.
9.
Thus, the excess funds created by Huntsville’s overpayments to Attitude have
been or are being directed by Huntsville to Cabela’s in the form of direct cash payments for
site work and free land on which Cabela’s store will be constructed. A substantial portion
of these funds are being held in escrow by Chicago Title for payment to Cabela’s after
Cabela’s completes certain construction on its property and is open for business. Providing
these municipal funds to Cabela’s in this manner violates the bar in § 94.01 of the State
Constitution on granting public funds to a private entity.
10.
Huntsville’s contribution of money to Cabela’s and the Parkside Project does
not follow customary procedures for the use of public resources for economic development.
A portion of the public monies used by Huntsville, as described herein, includes the taxes
3
DOCUMENT 82
paid by Fallin. Unless relief is granted to Fallin, his taxes will be needed to replenish monies
spent by Huntsville on the Parkside Project.
11.
For the reasons described below, the transactions between Huntsville, Attitude
should be enjoined by this court, and, any public monies delivered to Attitude or Chicago
Title for payment to Cabela’s should be restored to the Huntsville City treasury.
II. Facts
A.
Huntsville and the Developers work together to develop the Parkside Project.
12.
In 2009, the Developers identified the proposed location for the Parkside
Project in Huntsville, a 2-lot parcel (“the Property”), adjacent to which was located a
detention/retention area commonly known as “Lake 5.” The Developers persuaded the thenowners of the Property to sell the Property to Packard for $306,000.
13.
In 2012, after developing a portion of the Property, the Developers decided to
expand the Parkside Project to attract a Cabela’s store. Huntsville aided the Developers in
attracting Cabela’s to the Parkside Project by offering incentives to Cabela’s in the form of
free land and cash for development. Huntsville code named the plan to bring Cabela’s to the
Parkside Project “Project Dolphin.”
B.
Huntsville and the Developers lure Cabela’s to Parkside by passing economic
incentives from Huntsville to Cabela’s through Defendant Attitude.
14.
On March 7, 2014, Developer Attitude, LLC, committed to Cabela’s that a site
for a Cabela’s store would be provided “at no cost” to Cabela’s “in concert with a
Development Agreement with the City of Huntsville” and subject to City Council approval.
4
DOCUMENT 82
It specifically offered up to 21 acres, including subdivision of the parcel into appropriate
final acreage, and it “commit[ted] to providing a pad prepared site at no cost” to Cabela’s.
15.
On April 17, 2014, Huntsville provided a letter of commitment to Cabela’s and
advised that it was about to complete a “Development/Real Estate Agreement with Attitude,
LLC.”
16.
In an email dated April 23, 2014, Shane Davis, Huntsville’s Director of Urban
Development, outlined to representatives of Cabela’s the incentives Huntsville would
provide to Cabela’s, indicating that the direct and indirect incentives totaled $8,935,000. He
also pointed out that, with a previous development, Huntsville had been able to avoid its
obligations to provide public notice and a hearing under § 94.01 of the Alabama Constitution
when providing incentives for the project.
17.
In an email dated April 28, 2014, to a representative of Cabela’s, Shane Davis
again provided a list of incentives Huntsville planned to offer Cabela’s:
As you are aware, I have spent the past couple of days attempting to bridge the
gap for Project Dolphin without entering into the Amendment 772 process. In
so doing, the City has been able to secure the ability to offer Project Dolphin
the following:
Project Site Real Estate:
Broker Fee:
closing)
Site Improvements:
Total Incentives:
18.
$2,849,200 (rebate thru Developer)
$ 235,000 (paid by Developer at real estate
$1,900,000 (rebate thru Developer)
$4,984,200
On May 27, 2014, Attitude executed a purchase-sale agreement with Huntsville
to sell to Huntsville for $850,000 a 1.62-acre portion of a 4-acre parcel that is adjacent to
5
DOCUMENT 82
Lake 5. That 4-acre parcel is referred to herein as “the Lake Property.” As part of that
agreement, Huntsville obtained an option to purchase the remainder of the Lake Property for
$1,250,000, which it later exercised. Thus, in all, Huntsville has paid or is scheduled to pay
Attitude $2.1 million for the 4-acre Lake Property.
19.
On May 30, 2014, Attitude and Cabela’s entered into a purchase-sale
agreement whereby Attitude “sold” a 14-acre parcel to Cabela’s on which the Cabela’s store
was to be constructed. Although, as part of the agreement, Cabela’s agreed that $2,849,200
would be paid for the parcel, the agreement required that the money be placed in trust and
ultimately “refunded” to Cabela’s 30 days after it opened its store. Importantly, the
agreement does not specify that Cabela’s itself will place the purchase money in trust.
Instead, the agreement indicates that Attitude itself will place the purchase money in trust.
Thus, in effect, Cabela’s obtained the 14-acre parcel for free, regardless of whether it actually
builds a store on the parcel. In addition, the agreement between Attitude and Cabela’s
required Attitude to pay Cabela’s $1,900,000 to offset construction costs, an amount which,
under a later amendment to the agreement, Cabela’s would have to pay back to Attitude if
it did not open a store at the project site.
20.
On June 12, 2014, Huntsville and Attitude entered into a second purchase-sale
agreement whereby Huntsville agreed to purchase from Attitude a 3-acre parcel (“the Buffer
Property”) and a parcel on which a road leading to the construction site was located (“the
ROW”) for $3,584,200. As part of that agreement, Attitude purchased a 2-acre portion of
6
DOCUMENT 82
Lake 5 from Huntsville for $650,000, thus offsetting the amount Huntsville owed Attitude
and reducing that amount to $2,934,200.
21.
Also on June 12, Huntsville and Attitude entered into a “development
agreement” in which Huntsville agreed to perform a substantial amount of infrastructure and
other work at and around the parcel on which the Cabela’s store was to be built, and Attitude
agreed to reimburse Huntsville up to $1.9 million for that work if Cabela’s did not open a
store at the site by the end of 2015.
22.
At the June meeting where these agreements were approved, Huntsville’s
Director of Urban Development, Shane Davis, misrepresented to City Council members that
Huntsville was making $3 million in public improvements, that there were no improvements
on private property, and that there was no direct incentive to Cabela’s. In fact, Davis knew
that Huntsville was providing the funds for the Property where the Cabela’s facility would
be located. Davis also knew that those funds were meant to provide an incentive to Cabela’s
to open its facility on the Property for business.
23.
At the June meeting of the Council, Davis further led the members of the City
Council to believe that Huntsville would be getting all its funding back within two years.
24.
In late August 2014, Attitude and Cabela’s agreed that Cabela’s would have
four years to open for business--until October 2018, as a condition to keeping the incentives
Being provided. At that time, they amended their May Real Estate Purchase and Sale
Agreement (“PSA”), in a document titled First Amendment to Real Estate Purchase and Sale
7
DOCUMENT 82
Agreement (“PSA Amendment”). The August 2014 agreement also confirmed the linkage
between the monies described in Davis’s memo to the Cabela’s real estate advisor for
payment “thru the Developer” to Cabela’s.
25.
In the August PSA Amendment, Attitude and Cabela’s confirmed that the
“Purchase Price” to be paid for the Cabela’s 14-acre parcel would be in funds actually
provided by Attitude--totaling $4,749,200. Those funds comprise the $1.9 million payment
to Cabela’s under § 6(d) of the PSA to “offset construction costs and remaining
improvements” and an additional $2,849,200, the amount listed in § 3(a) of the PSA and
referenced in § 6(d) of the PSA. These funds are in the same amount to be routed “thru
Developer” as promised by Huntsville in April 2014. These monies are labeled the
“Incentives” by the PSA Amendment. The PSA Amendment itself indicates that Huntsville
is investing “substantial sums to improve roadways and infrastructure” because of the
Cabela’s land “purchase.”
26.
Under the August PSA Amendment, the $4,749,200 is to be deposited with
Chicago Title as Escrow Agent “for the benefit of” Cabela’s. In addition, the date for
opening the Cabela’s store to the public for business is extended to October 2018 (which is
“forty-eight (48) months after Closing”). In the event that deadline is not met, all the monies
are paid by the Escrow Agent back to Attitude.
8
DOCUMENT 82
27.
By separate agreement, “in the event the Cabela’s Store is not open to the
public for business by December 31, 2015,” Attitude is required to pay back to Huntsville
the $1.9 million.
28.
Thus, in summary, Huntsville gave Attitude the net sum of $5,034,200, which
is precisely $50,000 more than the $4,984,200 of incentives Shane Davis had indicated in his
email to Cabela’s that Huntsville would provide to Cabela’s “thru” or “by” Attitude.
Attitude, in turn, provided to Cabela’s a 14-acre parcel of property that the parties apparently
agreed was worth $2,849,200, or exactly $85,000 less than the amount Huntsville paid to
Attitude for the Buffer Property and the ROW. And, Huntsville provided infrastructure and
other work for the Cabela’s site worth $1.9 million, an amount Attitude would have to pay
back to Huntsville if Cabela’s did not open a store on the site. At the same time, Attitude
agreed to pay that exact amount, $1.9 million, to Cabela’s, which Cabela’s would have to
refund to Attitude if it did not open a store (thus funding the $1.9 million Attitude would owe
to Huntsville in that circumstance). Finally, if Cabela’s does not build a store on the property
provided to it, it still gets to keep that property at no cost to it, and Attitude still gets to keep
the over $5 million Huntsville paid to it for parcels of land that, collectively, are worth
nothing near that amount.
C.
Huntsville’s concealment of the scheme through its sham transactions with the
Developers.
29.
Huntsville’s impermissible financing of the Parkside Project through its sham
“purchases” of real estate from Attitude and its use of Attitude as a middleman by which to
9
DOCUMENT 82
funnel incentives to Cabela’s becomes particularly apparent when considering the
Developers’ “investment” in the ROW, Buffer Property, and Lake Property and the returns
on those investments from Huntsville’s purchases.
30.
Specifically, Huntsville purchased the 2.86-acre ROW and the 3-acre Buffer
Property from Attitude for $3,584,200, despite the fact that the Developers originally paid
less than $1.2 million for the entire approximately 44 acres from which those parcels are
carved. Moreover, Huntsville paid $2.1 million for the Lake Property, which is more than
15 times greater than the $133,250 Attitude paid for that property.
31.
Neither Attitude nor the other Developers did anything to improve the ROW,
Buffer Property, or Lake Property or to otherwise cause their fair market values to
exponentially increase during the limited time they owned those properties. The ROW,
Buffer Property, and Lake Property remained in the same unimproved state when Huntsville
purchased them from the Developers in 2014 as they had when the Developers purchased
them in 2009.
32.
Huntsville has concealed, and continues to conceal, the nature of the
transactions with the Developers and the benefits to them and to Cabelas. Among other
things, Huntsville’s officials have falsely indicated that Huntsville did not provide incentives
to Cabelas, beyond indirect infrastructure improvements, when they are fully aware and
intended that Huntsville provide incentives to Cabelas in the form of free land and cash for
10
DOCUMENT 82
construction improvements to the land, all the while utilizing sham arrangements with the
Developers to hide the provision of those incentives.
33.
In addition, Huntsville officials misrepresented to the public the amount of
public funds expended in connection with the announcement that Cabelas will locate a new
store in Huntsville. They have stated publicly that Huntsville has spent $2.9 million, when,
in actuality, Huntsville will pay a net amount in excess of $5 million and fund improvements
worth almost $2 million.
34.
Moreover, not only have Huntsville officials misrepresented the amount of City
funds they have spent in connection with luring Cabela’s to Huntsville, they obtained sham
appraisals of the parcels Huntsville purchased from Attitude that inflate the stated values of
the parcels far beyond their actual worth as buffer, drainage, and right of way.
35.
For example, although Huntsville’s appraisal of the 4-acre Lake Property
assigns a value of $2.1 million to that parcel, the appraisal indicates that this value is accurate
only under the following conditions, none of which are true: (1) the Lake Property is suitable
for development as a commercial site that could be developed with a commercial use similar
to that being developed on other sites in the area; (2) that, although the it is located within
a 100 year flood zone, less than one foot of fill would be required to fill above the flood
elevation; (3) the site is readily accessible to the future development and all utilities have
been extended to the site; (4) the parcel is a stand alone commercial site suitable for
development; and (5) the parcel would be connected to the development by a roadway that
11
DOCUMENT 82
will allow for ingress and egress. The appraisal of the Lake Property noted that a substantial
amount of site preparation work would have to be completed prior to the parcel being
suitable for development, and it cautioned that if any of the above-noted conditions is not
met, “the final estimate of value would be much lower” than the value contained in the
appraisal. Instead of developing the Lake Property and meeting the conditions set forth in
the appraisal, Huntsville has simply flooded all or almost all of it, using the Lake Property
to expand Lake 5.
D.
Huntsville’s actions violate §94 of the Alabama Constitution and related
amendments.
36.
Under Section 94 of the Alabama Constitution, it is unconstitutional, and in
excess of statutory power, for a municipality such as Huntsville to grant public money or a
thing of value in aid of or to any individual, association, or corporation, unless the action has
been fully advertised to the public, as provided in § 94.01 (Amendment 772). Through its
actions in providing incentives to Cabela’s, Huntsville has violated those constitutional
provisions. Furthermore, Huntsville’s acts and omissions are so arbitrary and unreasonable
as to constitute a misuse of power not authorized by law.
37.
In its business relationship and transactions with the Developers, Huntsville
has applied public funds or attempted to apply public funds for the private benefit of the
Developers and Cabela’s, virtually financing or bankrolling the Parkside Project.
12
DOCUMENT 82
E.
Huntsville violates the Open Records Act.
38.
In an October 1, 2014, letter (delivered to Huntsville on October 2, 2014),
Fallin requested that Huntsville make available to him for inspection and copying certain
records of Huntsville related to its activity and spending or planned spending of public funds
for the purpose of arranging for Cabela’s to locate a retail store in Huntsville, and,
particularly, at the Parkside Project.
39.
The particular items requested in Fallin’s October 1 letter were any and all
public writings or records concerning or related in any way to:
•
public money spent, or committed to be spent, directly or indirectly by
Huntsville for or on behalf of Cabela’s, Developers, or any other person or
business entity associated with Cabela’s or Developers;
•
the purchase, sale, lease, encumbrance, conveyance, or release of real property
by Huntsville within the Parkside Project and/or associated with Developers;
•
the appraisal or value of any real property purchased, sold, encumbered,
conveyed, or released by Huntsville within the Parkside Project and/or
associated with Developers;
•
the economic impact on Huntsville and/or Madison County associated with
Cabela’s operations;
•
the escrow of money associated with Cabela’s and/or the purchase, sale, lease,
encumbrance, conveyance, or release of real property by Huntsville within the
Parkside Project and/or associated with Developers;
•
public notice of the terms and conditions of and parties to the purchase, sale,
lease, encumbrance, conveyance, or release of real property by Huntsville
within the Parkside Project and/or associated with Developers;
•
public notice of the terms and conditions of and parties to transactions
involving money, benefits, or incentives provided, credit afforded, loans made,
financing of and/or payments directly or indirectly to Cabela’s or Developers;
13
DOCUMENT 82
•
the documents made available or delivered to members of the City Council
related to Cabela’s, Developers, and/or the purchase, sale, lease, encumbrance,
conveyance, or release of real property by Huntsville within the Parkside
Project and/or associated with Developers;
•
any resolution of the City Council, including, but not limited to, the resolution
adopted by the City Council on June 12, 2014 (No. 14-435), associated directly
or indirectly with Cabela’s or the Parkside Project; and
•
the subjects or subject matter discussed in the minutes of the City Council on
June 12, 2014.
40.
The time period of the requested documents was January 1, 2009, going
forward.
41.
Fallin also requested that the documents to be produced include not only
physical items but also electronically stored documents and communications.
42.
Huntsville does not have a standard process for receiving and resolving
requests for documents that are made pursuant to the Open Records Act.
43.
Fallin received no response from Huntsville concerning his October 1 open
records request.
44.
Fallin filed the present action on October 22, 2014. Over fifty days after
Fallin’s records request, on November 21, Huntsville filed a motion to dismiss in which it
addressed, for the first time, its failure to abide by its obligations under the Open Records
Act, Ala. Code §§ 36-12-40 to -41 to provide Fallin with the documents he had requested.
Huntsville represented to the Court that it would provide those documents to Fallin.
14
DOCUMENT 82
45.
The Court set Huntsville’s motion to dismiss for a hearing on January 16, 2015.
On January 14, over 100 days after Fallin’s request, Huntsville provided Fallin approximately
two thousand pages of documents. On the day of the hearing, Huntsville provided Fallin a
few hundred additional pages of documents.
46.
Huntsville possesses additional records that are responsive to Fallin’s Open
Records request that it has turned over to the Court for in camera inspection.
COUNT ONE
Violation of the Open Records Act, Ala. Code §§ 36-12-40 to -41
47.
Fallin realleges and reasserts the preceding factual allegations as if fully set
forth herein.
48.
The Open Records Act, Ala. Code § 36-12-40, provides that “[e]very citizen
has a right to inspect and take a copy of any public writing of this state ....”
49.
Fallin has requested particular public writings from Huntsville relating to the
above-described transactions concerning Cabela’s.
50.
In violation of § 36-12-40, Huntsville failed to make the requested documents
available to Fallin for inspection and copying.
51.
Since the filing of this action, Huntsville has provided some of the documents
Fallin requested. Huntsville has failed or refused to provide Fallin with other documents that
are both responsive to his request and subject to disclosure under the Open Records Act.
And, Huntsville has not demonstrated that it undertook an adequate search for responsive
documents that are due to be produced.
15
DOCUMENT 82
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Fallin demands a judgment against Huntsville
that: (1) enjoins Huntsville, and all persons acting in concert with it, from refusing to make
available to him the records related to the Cabela’s transactions as requested above; (2)
declares that Huntsville is required to provide the records requested; (3) declares that
Huntsville’s search for responsive documents subject to disclosure was inadequate; (4)
enjoins Huntsville to undertake an adequate search for responsive documents subject to
disclosure; (5) deems void any actions that the requested documents show were taken by
meetings occurring in violation of the Open Meetings Act, Ala. Code § 36-25A-1, et seq.;
and (6) provides such other relief as may be just and proper, including an award of attorneys’
fees and costs of this action.
COUNT TWO
Violations of Ala. Const. art. IV, §§ 94 and 94.01
52.
Fallin realleges and reasserts the preceding factual allegations as if fully set
forth herein.
53.
Huntsville has engaged in the illegal or wrongful conveyance, disposition, or
diversion of municipal property. Indeed, Huntsville’s contracts with Attitude are illegal and
constitute the unauthorized appropriation, use, and expenditure of public funds in violation
of Ala. Const. art. IV, §§ 94 and 94.01. Huntsville’s actions in “purchasing” the ROW,
Buffer Property, and Lake Property have resulted in waste and injury to Huntsville’s property
and funds and to the community in general for the benefit and aid of a private individual.
16
DOCUMENT 82
54.
Huntsville’s “purchases” of the ROW, Buffer Property, and Lake Property at
excessive and unreasonable prices are affected by fraud (actual or constructive), corruption,
collusion, unfair dealing, and abuse. They are a mere sham by which Huntsville is
attempting to hide its transfer of funds to Cabela’s and avoid its obligations to notify the
public of its provision of economic incentives, in the form of cash and land, to Cabela’s.
55.
Based on the above, an actual, justiciable controversy has arisen and now exists
between Fallin and Huntsville concerning the rights and obligations of Huntsville under any
contract with any of the Developers.
56.
Fallin desires a judicial determination of the rights, status, or other legal
relations of Huntsville, the Developers, and Cabela’s based on the contracts for sale of the
ROW, Buffer Property, and Lake Property and the construction or validity of those contracts
and other declarations that will terminate the controversy or remove an uncertainty between
Huntsville and its citizens and taxpayers, such as: whether Huntsville’s acts and omissions
related to the Parkside Project, the Developers, and Cabela’s violated public policy or were
unlawful, unconstitutional, or otherwise wrongful and improper; whether Huntsville’s
“purchase” of the ROW, Buffer Property, or Lake Property must be set aside; whether
Huntsville’s “purchase” of the ROW, Buffer Property, or Lake Property constitutes a misuse
of public funds; and whether any proposed purchase by Huntsville of the ROW, Buffer
Property, or Lake Property must be enjoined.
17
DOCUMENT 82
57.
A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the
circumstances in order that Fallin may ascertain the rights, status, or other legal relations of
Huntsville, the Developers, and Cabela’s based on the contracts for sale of the ROW, Buffer
Property, and Lake Property and the construction or validity of those contracts and other
declarations that will terminate the controversy or remove an uncertainty between Huntsville
and its taxpayers.
58.
If Huntsville is not enjoined from continuing its wrongful conduct, including,
but not limited to, the expenditure of public funds and the purchase and sale of the ROW,
Buffer Property, and Lake Property, then Fallin and other Huntsville taxpayers will continue
to suffer substantial and irreparable injury. Fallin has no adequate remedy at law for the
injuries and damages suffered by him and, therefore, he requests that this Court issue a
preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction after a trial on the merits.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Fallin demands a judgment against Huntsville
that provides the following relief:
A.
A declaration that: (1) the purchase price paid by Huntsville for the ROW,
Buffer Property, and Lake Property is excessive, and void, illegal, and ultra vires as a scheme
to direct public money to Cabela’s in violation of the State Constitution’s prohibition on
municipalities granting public funds to a private business; (2) any deed conveying the ROW,
Buffer Property, and Lake Property from Developers to Huntsville is void and invalid; (3)
any deed conveying the ROW, Buffer Property, or Lake Property is due to be canceled of
18
DOCUMENT 82
record; and (4) Huntsville is due to be reimbursed all of the funds it has transferred to
Attitude, or the funds now held by Chicago Title for the benefit of Cabela’s, as part of the
above-described scheme to provide incentives to Cabela’s to open a retail store.
B.
Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining and enjoining
Huntsville and its councilmen, mayor, officials, and agents; Attitude and its officers and
agents; and Chicago Title and its officers and agents: (1) from proceeding with any of the
property transfers between Huntsville and the Developers; (2) from transferring any funds,
directly or indirectly, to Cabela’s or any of the Developers, or any persons or entities working
for, in behalf of, or in concert or participation with Cabela’s or the Developers; and (3) to
restore to Huntsville the funds placed in escrow with Chicago Title.
C.
Such other and further relief to which Fallin may show himself justly entitled
at law or in equity, including attorneys’ fees and costs of this action.
Respectfully submitted on March 18, 2015.
s/ Albert L. Jordan
Albert L. Jordan (JOR002)
s/ Matthew D. Fridy
Matthew D. Fridy (FRI035)
OF COUNSEL:
Wallace Jordan Ratliff & Brandt, LLC
800 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 400
P.O. Box 530910
Birmingham, Alabama 35253
19
DOCUMENT 82
Newly added defendants to be served by certified mail at the following addresses:
Attitude, LLC
c/o James B. Packard
3060 High Mountain Road
Huntsville, AL 35811
Chicago Title Insurance Company
c/o CT Corporation System
5601 South 59th Street
Lincoln, NE 68516
20
DOCUMENT 82
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 18, 2015, a copy of the foregoing was electronically
filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court using the AlaFile System, which sends notification
of such filing to counsel of record in this cause and that those not registered with AlaFile for
electronic notification have been served by U.S. Mail:
T. Michael Brown
Benjamin L. McArthur
Harold D. Mooty, III
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP
One Federal Place
1819 Fifth Avenue North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
s/ Albert L. Jordan
Of Counsel
21