In re: Amanda Busby et al. v. City of Tuskegee et al., SC-2025-0247

Tuskegee adopted an ordinance authorizing automated photo enforcement for traffic violations and treating violations as civil fines with an administrative-hearing process in municipal court and appeal to circuit court. 1
The plaintiffs received citations under the ordinance and sued the City and JENOPTIK for declaratory, injunctive, refund, and tort relief, challenging the ordinance and the citation process. 2
Before suit, the City passed Resolution 2024-36 canceling and voiding citations issued during a specified period and making prior payors eligible for refunds, then later passed Resolution 2024-55 stopping all citations and hearings under the ordinance. 3
The City defendants and JENOPTIK moved to dismiss, arguing lack of a justiciable controversy, mootness, and other grounds; the trial court denied dismissal. 4
The complaint alleged some plaintiffs had paid fines or failed to pursue the ordinance’s administrative challenge process, while three plaintiffs alleged separate employment, reputational, and related harms from dissemination of their citations. 5
The Supreme Court granted mandamus in part, holding the ordinance-based claims moot, but leaving the tort claims and JENOPTIK personal-jurisdiction issues undisturbed. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are challenges to the ordinance moot? 7	Busby said a live controversy existed when suit began and the ordinance could recur.	City and JENOPTIK said plaintiffs accepted liability or failed to contest citations, and enforcement ended.	Yes; ordinance-based claims were moot and must be dismissed. 8
Are the tort claims moot? 9	Busby claimed independent negligence, privacy, and fraud injuries survived.	City and JENOPTIK said the ordinance’s cancellation mooted all claims.	No; the tort claims were not shown moot. 10
Has JENOPTIK shown lack of personal jurisdiction? 11	Busby relied on allegations linking JENOPTIK to Traffipax’s Alabama contract and devices.	JENOPTIK claimed insufficient Alabama contacts and service defects.	No; JENOPTIK did not establish a clear right to dismissal on personal jurisdiction. 12

Woodgett v. City of Midfield, 319 So. 3d 1231 (Ala. 2020) (accepting liability under a photo-enforcement ordinance moots later declaratory challenges 13)
Moore v. City of Center Point, 319 So. 3d 1223 (Ala. 2020) (paying the fine or failing to timely contest liability moots the controversy 14)
City of Montgomery v. Hunter, 319 So. 3d 1213 (Ala. 2020) (accepting liability under an ordinance moots the dispute 15)
Mills v. City of Opelika, 320 So. 3d 554 (Ala. 2020) (same mootness rule for photo-enforcement challenges 16)
Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So. 2d 972 (Ala. 2007) (a declaratory action cannot continue once the controversy becomes moot 17)
Barber v. Cornerstone Cmty. Outreach, Inc., 42 So. 3d 65 (Ala. 2009) (voluntary cessation moots a case only if recurrence is not reasonably expected 18)
Ex parte Brown, 331 So. 3d 79 (Ala. 2021) (denial of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is generally not reviewable by mandamus 19)
Ex parte Covington Pike Dodge, Inc., 904 So. 2d 226 (Ala. 2004) (personal-jurisdiction motions require evidentiary support and burdens shift after a prima facie showing 20)
Ex parte Excelsior Fin., Inc., 42 So. 3d 96 (Ala. 2010) (personal jurisdiction is assessed on the evidence presented at the motion stage 21)