In re: Demarco Stoudmire v. City of Birmingham, SC-2025-0591

Background

Stoudmire crashed his motorcycle on Avenue V in Birmingham after striking a road defect and later alleged the City failed to repair it. 1
He filed a notice of claim within six months, but the City contended it was too vague to satisfy Alabama's notice-of-claim statutes. 2
The City also asserted municipal immunity, claiming it lacked actual or constructive notice of the defect before the accident. 3
After the trial court initially denied summary judgment, it later struck several items of Stoudmire's evidence and again denied the City's renewed motion. 4
The City petitioned for mandamus, arguing the remaining admissible evidence could not show prior notice and that immunity required summary judgment. 5
The Supreme Court held Stoudmire's admissible evidence did not create a genuine issue on actual or constructive notice and ordered judgment for the City. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus review was available for the City's immunity-based summary-judgment ruling 7	Stoudmire argued mandamus should not reach notice-of-claim issues.	The City said immunity denial is mandamus-reviewable.	Mandamus review was proper for the immunity issue, but not the notice-of-claim issue. 8
Whether the City made a prima facie showing of no prior notice 9	Stoudmire said the City knew or should have known of the defect.	The City relied on 311 searches and public-works testimony showing no prior notice.	Yes; the City established a prima facie lack of notice. 10
Whether Stoudmire produced substantial evidence of actual notice 11	Stoudmire relied on Fitzpatrick's affidavit and accident-scene documents.	Those materials did not show the City knew of the specific defect beforehand.	No; the evidence did not show actual notice of the same defect before the crash. 12
Whether Stoudmire produced substantial evidence of constructive notice 13	Stoudmire relied on the road's age, other accidents, and Fitzpatrick's affidavit.	The City said the struck statement was inadmissible and the remaining proof was speculative.	No; the evidence was speculative and defect-specific proof of duration was missing. 14
Whether the trial court erred in denying summary judgment 15	Stoudmire argued factual disputes barred summary judgment.	The City argued immunity entitled it to judgment as a matter of law.	Yes; the writ issued directing summary judgment for the City. 16

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 148 So. 3d 1060 (Ala. 2014) (mandamus requires a clear legal right, duty, no adequate remedy, and jurisdiction 17)
Ex parte Wood, 852 So. 2d 705 (Ala. 2002) (mandamus review may extend to summary-judgment denials grounded on immunity 18)
Ex parte City of Muscle Shoals, 257 So. 3d 850 (Ala. 2018) (municipal immunity cases may be reviewed by mandamus and prior complaint evidence can show lack of notice 19)
Ex parte Kelley, 296 So. 3d 822 (Ala. 2019) (mandamus review limited to the immunity issues presented 20)
Nettles v. Pettway, 306 So. 3d 873 (Ala. 2020) (summary-judgment denials are reviewed de novo 21)
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama v. Hodurski, 899 So. 2d 949 (Ala. 2004) (summary-judgment movant must make a prima facie showing of no genuine issue 22)
Powers v. Chadwell Homes, LLC, 413 So. 3d 707 (Ala. 2024) (burden shifts to nonmovant to present substantial evidence 23)
Jefferson Cnty. Comm'n v. ECO Preservation Servs., L.L.C., 788 So. 2d 121 (Ala. 2000) (evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant 24)
Slade v. City of Montgomery, 577 So. 2d 887 (Ala. 1991) (constructive notice may arise when ordinary diligence would reveal the defect 25)
Ex parte Ala. Peace Officers' Standards & Training Comm'n, 34 So. 3d 1248 (Ala. 2009) (mere speculation cannot defeat properly supported summary judgment 26)
Barrett v. Radjabi-Mougadam, 39 So. 3d 95 (Ala. 2009) (unauthenticated writings cannot be considered on summary judgment 27)
Couch v. City of Sheffield, 708 So. 2d 144 (Ala. 1998) (affidavits must be sworn before an authorized officer 28)
Ex parte Jones, 147 So. 3d 415 (Ala. 2013) (trial courts have discretion over renewed summary-judgment practice and timing matters for mandamus 29)
Poe v. Grove Mem'l Hosp. Bd., 441 So. 2d 861 (Ala. 1983) (notice-of-claim statutes are read together to require a sworn statement within six months 30)
Jackson Hosp. & Clinic, Inc. v. Murphy, 343 So. 3d 490 (Ala. 2021) (courts may pretermit remaining issues after resolving a dispositive issue 31)