DOCUMENT 37

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
5/23/2016 5:13 PM
03-CV-2016-900538.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
TIFFANY B. MCCORD, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

SPENCER COLLIER,

Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERT BENTLEY, et al.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No: 03-CV-2016-900538

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

SECRETARY STABLERS MOTION TO DISMISS

AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Defendant Stan Stabler, Secretary of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA),
respectfully moves this Court to dismiss each of the claims against him, separately and severally,
under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Spencer Colliers
complaint is replete with irresponsible and misleading factual allegations. If this case were to
proceed to discovery or trial, those factual allegations ultimately would be proved false. But this
Court need not proceed to discovery or a trial because each count of the Complaint, as a matter
of law, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Secretary Stabler.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court should dismiss each of Colliers counts against Secretary Stabler if Collier
could prove [no] set of circumstances that would entitle [him] to relief for each count. Liberty
Nat. Life Ins. v. Univ. of Ala. Health Servs. Found., 881 So. 2d 1013, 1017 (Ala. 2013). As
explained below, for each of the counts Collier asserts against Secretary Stabler, he can prove no
set of circumstances that would entitle him to relief.

DOCUMENT 37

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Collier asserts claims against Secretary Stabler for actions Secretary Stabler took, by
Colliers own allegations and admission, in the line and scope of [Secretary Stablers]
employment. Compl. 14. On February 17, 2016, the Governor appointed Stabler as Acting
Secretary of ALEA. Id. 21. The ALEA Secretary oversees the Department of Public Safety and
the State Bureau of Investigations. See ALA. CODE 41-27-2. According to the Complaint,
Stabler immediately initiated an investigation of Collier. Compl. 38. Collier alleges that on
March 22, 2016, the Governors office, without notice to Collier fired Collier and told the press
for publication that an internal investigation at the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency
uncovered possible wrong doing during Colliers time [as] Secretary. Id. 39. Collier also
alleges that Bentley and Stabler both told the press for publication that the ALEA investigation
of Collier was a criminal matter intending for the public to conclude that Collier had committed a
crime, which he had not. Id. 40. Collier later filed this civil action, seeking monetary damages
against Secretary Stabler and others.

ARGUMENT

Colliers complaint asserts nine counts against the various defendants, but only three
against Secretary Stabler Count III for false-light invasion of privacy; Count V for defamation;
and Count VII for intentional interference with business relation. Collier premises each of those
counts on false factual allegations, but even on the facts asserted by Collier, each of these counts
sets forth circumstances that show that he is not entitled to relief as a matter of law.

DOCUMENT 37

I.

Colliers allegations show that he is not entitled to relief against Secretary Stabler
under Count III for false-light invasion of privacy.
Count III fails to state any claim for false-light invasion of privacy for which relief may

be granted against Secretary Collier. This is so for two reasons.

First, it is black-letter law that [a]n action for invasion of privacy based on false light
cannot relate to any matter which is inherently public or of legitimate interest to the public. 2
ALA. PERS. INJ. & TORTS 12:28 (2014 ed.); 62 AM. JUR. 2D PRIVACY 6; accord Minnifield v.
Ashcraft, 903 So. 2d 818, 822-23 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) (There is a legitimate public interest
exception to the right to privacy.). Consistent with this principle, numerous courts have held
that there can be no false light invasion of privacy for matters involving official acts or duties of
public officers. Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers,Inc., 783 P.2d 781, 789 (Ariz. 1989).
Where the operation of laws and activities of the police or other public bodies are involved, the
matter is within the public interest. Hagler v. Democrat-News,Inc., 699 S.W. 2d 96, 99 (Mo.
Ct. App. 1985). This is particularly so with respect to governmental investigations: where an
incident is a matter of public interest, or the subject matter of a public investigation, a publication
in connection therewith can be a violation of no one's legal right of privacy. Wilson v. Thurman,
445 S.E. 2d 811, 814 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).These principles mean that, even if it could be
assumed that the facts asserted in the complaint were true, Collier cannot show any
circumstances that would entitle him to relief for false-light invasion of privacy. The alleged
statements concerned the subject matter of a public investigation, so the incident was
inherently a matter of public interest and thus not within Colliers legal right of privacy. Id.
Second and alternatively, Collier cannot point to any statements by Stabler that, even on
Colliers theory, are false. See RegionsBankv. Plott, 897 So. 2d 239, 244 (Ala. 2004) (noting
that falsity is an element of any false-light invasion-of-privacy claim). Collier does not point to

DOCUMENT 37

any particular statement that he claims Secretary Stabler made. But it appears that the basis for
Colliers false-light claim may be Secretary Stablers statement to the press on March 22, 2016,
that ALEAs integrity unit conducted a thorough internal review of the operations, policies, and
procedures of the agency, had found a number of concerns including the possible misuse of
state funds, and that the [f]indings of the review have been submitted to the Alabama Attorney
Generals Office for further action. Exh. A. Collier has not attached that statement to his
complaint, but it is attached as Exhibit A to this motion, and may be considered for the purposes
of this motion to dismiss. See Jackson v. WAFF,LLC, 109 So. 3d 1123, 1125-26 (Ala. Civ. App.
2012) (noting that a television station sued for defamation could include DVD recordings of the
broadcasts at issue as exhibits to their motions to dismiss because the broadcasts were referred
to in, and are central to, [the plaintiffs] complaint). That statement does not, as Collier alleges,
state that he had misused state funds or that Collier had committed a crime. Compl. 55.
The statement says that the internal review had found possible misuse of state funds in the
agency and had been submitted to the Attorney Generals office. Ex. A. Collier does not allege
and cannot allege that this statement is false.
For both of those reasons, there is no set of circumstances under which Collier could
prevail against Stabler under Count III for false-light invasion of privacy, and this Court should
dismiss Count III as to Secretary Stabler.

II.

Colliers allegations show that he is not entitled to relief against Secretary Stabler
under Count V for defamation.

Colliers failure to allege false statements by Stabler likewise makes it impossible for him
to establish a defamation claim against Stabler under Count V. As noted above, the statements by

DOCUMENT 37

Stabler about which Collier is complaining appear to be the ones reported by the press on March
22, 2016, that ALEAs integrity unit conducted a thorough internal review of the operations,
policies, and procedures of the agency, had found a number of concerns including the possible
misuse of state funds, and that the [f]indings of the review have been submitted to the
Alabama Attorney Generals Office for further action. Ex. A. Truth is an absolute defense to a
defamation claim. See Federal Credit,Inc. v. Fuller, 72 So. 3d 5, 10 (Ala. 2011); S.B. v. Saint
JamesSchool, 959 So. 2d 72, 100 (Ala. 2006). Collier does not allege, and cannot allege, that
ALEA had not conducted the internal review, that it had not found possible misuse of state
funds, or that ALEA had not submitted the findings to the AGs office. Collier thus cannot
prevail against Secretary Stabler under Count V, and this Court should dismiss that count as to
Secretary Stabler.

III.

Colliers allegations show that he is not entitled to relief against Secretary Stabler
under Count VII for intentional interference with business relation.

Finally, Colliers allegations show that there are no circumstances under which he could
prevail against Secretary Stabler under Count VII for intentional interference with business
relation. It is longstanding Alabama law that when a former employee sues a co-employee for
interfering with the formers employees business relationship with his former employer, the
plaintiff must also prove that the co-employee was not acting on behalf of the employer or
otherwise within the scope of the co-employees employment. Henderson v. Early, 555 So. 2d
130, 131-32 (Ala. 1989). It is undisputed and indisputable that Secretary Stabler was acting on
behalf of ALEA when conducting the alleged internal review, and Collier himself alleged in his
complaint that the alleged wrongful acts and omissions were committed while in the

DOCUMENT 37

performance the line and scope of [Secretary Stablers] employment. Compl. 14. So under
longstanding Alabama law, Secretary Stabler cannot be held liable for interfering with any
business relationship between the State and Collier.

CONCLUSION
This Court should dismiss Counts III, V, and VII as to Secretary Stabler for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because those are the only three counts Collier
asserts against Secretary Stabler, this Court likewise should dismiss Secretary Stabler as a
defendant in this case.

Respectfully submitted,
/
s/John C. Neiman,Jr.
John C. Neiman, Jr.
Stephanie Houston Mays
Mark D. Foley, Jr.
Attorneysfor Stan Stabler
OF COUNSEL:
MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
1901 Sixth Avenue North
2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2618
Telephone: 205.254.1000
Fax: 205.254.1999

DOCUMENT 37

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 23, 2016, a copy of the foregoing has been served on the
following counsel via the Courts Alafile system:

Kenneth J. Mendelsohn
Jemison & Mendelsohn
1772 Platt Place
Montgomery, AL 36117
kenny@jmfirm.com
Thomas E. James
Law Offices of Tommy James
2700 Corporate Drive, Suite 200
Birmingham, AL 35242
tjameslaw1@gmail.com
Respectfully submitted,
/
s/John C. Neiman,Jr.
OF COUNSEL