From Judge Terry Moorer (S.D. Ala.) today in Doe v. Goff:
At issue before the Court is the Defendant Kelly Goff’s request for an accelerated decision on Jane Doe’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim and Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Goff asserts that Plaintiff’s motions have remained under consideration for more than four and a half months, alongside his own motion for summary judgment. He notes that discovery will close on August 31, 2026, dispositive motions are due by September 25, 2026, and a settlement conference is scheduled with the Magistrate Judge on September 1, 2026.
Defense counsel had previously reached out to chambers by phone seeking a rapid determination on the summary judgment motion, and it appeared that he misread the Court’s posture when the Court immediately denied his prior request to expedite that ruling. It should be clear that this Court handles a crowded docket with multiple matters, and a party cannot leapfrog ahead of other pending filings simply because of insistence. It falls to the Court to set docket priorities, not to the Defendant. In simple terms, criminal cases take precedence, followed by civil matters that are older or have statewide significance. Moreover, the rationale offered by the Defendant — that ongoing litigation incurs attorney’s fees — applies to all parties involved in such proceedings.
The Court possesses inherent authority to govern how and when matters are resolved on its docket, in a manner it finds appropriate.
The motion for ruling is GRANTED. The old adage “be careful what you wish for” may ring true here, as the Defendant could discover that reality does not align with his expectations. The Court issues this concise summary order to resolve the requested relief and associated motions, while a more detailed opinion setting forth the Court’s full reasoning will follow later. It is ORDERED that both of Plaintiff’s motions are GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim seeks the dismissal of the Defendant’s counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, as these are state-law claims that have no connection to Plaintiff’s federal claim and lack an independent basis for jurisdiction. Consequently, Defendant’s breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment counterclaims are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff’s motion to amend requests the addition of a state-law claim—outrage—tied directly to her federal claim, for which the Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court should freely grant leave when justice requires. The motion was timely under the scheduling order, and Defendant’s sole objection is that he desires a ruling on his summary-judgment motion beforehand. That line of reasoning is insufficient, particularly given that the summary-judgment motion was filed at a very early stage. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a separate Second Amended Complaint no later than August 31, 2026.
The Court declines to preemptively adjudicate the Defendant’s summary-judgment motion. Silence from the nonmoving party does not automatically translate into a victory for the movant. A motion for summary judgment does not automatically warrant grant simply because the opposing party has not responded. Even in cases where there is no opposition, the movant bears the burden to demonstrate entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
While it is possible that the Defendant’s legal arguments have some merit and that summary judgment could ultimately be warranted, the issue is not straightforward and appears to present a first-of-its-kind question for the courts. Additionally, success on the federal question does not automatically resolve the state-law claim; the Court may continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction or may decline it, leaving Alabama courts to resolve the remaining disputes between the parties. The Court also notes evidentiary concerns, such as whether the submitted image is authentic given that it appears to be a photograph of a photograph displayed on a screen.
The Court also recognizes concerns about the Plaintiff’s cooperation in discovery and her failure to respond to the motion within the local-rule timetable. Nonetheless, these issues are ones the Court can address when it later considers the summary-judgment motion, which is not today.
