In re: Amanda Busby et al. v. City of Tuskegee et al., SC-2025-0251

Tuskegee enacted Ordinance No. 2023-01 to enforce traffic laws through automated photographic-enforcement devices and administrative civil fines. 1
The plaintiffs were motorists cited under the ordinance and sued the City and JENOPTIK seeking declaratory, injunctive, and damages relief, including refunds. 2
The City later passed resolutions voiding prior citations, extending warning periods, and ultimately ceasing all citations and related hearings under the ordinance. 3
The trial court denied motions to dismiss filed by the City defendants and JENOPTIK, and they sought mandamus review. 4
The plaintiffs' complaint was sparse on whether each plaintiff paid a fine or pursued the ordinance's administrative contest procedures before suing. 5
The amended complaint also asserted negligence, invasion-of-privacy, and fraud claims based on alleged independent tortious conduct, including third-party dissemination of violations and employment consequences. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are ordinance-challenge claims moot? 7	City still enforced ordinance when suit began; public-interest exception applies.	Plaintiffs accepted liability or citations were voided, mooting controversy.	Yes, ordinance-challenge claims are moot and must be dismissed. 8
May tort claims survive mootness? 9	Tort claims allege independent harm from citations and disclosures.	Cessation and payment/refunds mooted the entire action.	Yes, tort claims are not shown moot. 10
Is mandamus available on the tort-claim dismissal? 11	Tort allegations state viable claims against defendants.	Claims fail on the merits and are not reviewable by mandamus.	No mandamus relief on general tort-claim viability. 12
Did JENOPTIK establish lack of personal jurisdiction? 13	JENOPTIK is tied to the Alabama contract and devices.	JENOPTIK lacks sufficient Alabama contacts.	No, JENOPTIK did not show entitlement to dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. 14

Ex parte Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 888 So. 2d 478 (Ala. 2003) (subject-matter jurisdiction is reviewable by mandamus 15)
Ex parte Vance, 900 So. 2d 394 (Ala. 2004) (mandamus requires a clear and certain right to relief 16)
Ex parte Mercury Fin. Corp., 715 So. 2d 196 (Ala. 1997) (mandamus elements 17)
Ex parte Alamo Title Co., 128 So. 3d 700 (Ala. 2013) (mandamus is proper to challenge denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction 18)
Woodgett v. City of Midfield, 319 So. 3d 1231 (Ala. 2020) (accepting liability by paying fines or failing to contest under an ordinance moots the controversy 19)
Mills v. City of Opelika, 320 So. 3d 554 (Ala. 2020) (same mootness rule for ordinance challenges 20)
Moore v. City of Center Point, 319 So. 3d 1223 (Ala. 2020) (payment or failure to contest liability moots ordinance challenge 21)
City of Montgomery v. Hunter, 319 So. 3d 1213 (Ala. 2020) (acceptance of liability settles and moots controversy 22)
Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So. 2d 972 (Ala. 2007) (a declaratory-judgment action cannot continue once the controversy becomes moot 23)
Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 42 So. 3d 65 (Ala. 2009) (voluntary cessation may moot a case, but burden is demanding 24)
Ex parte Covington Pike Dodge, Inc., 904 So. 2d 226 (Ala. 2004) (personal-jurisdiction burden-shifting framework 25)
Ex parte Excelsior Fin., Inc., 42 So. 3d 96 (Ala. 2010) (personal jurisdiction requires sufficient evidentiary support 26)