How to Alienate a Judge, Part 374

In a recent decision in Doe v. Goff, United States District Judge Terry Moorer of the Southern District of Alabama addressed a motion submitted by defendant Kelly Goff, who sought expedited rulings on several procedural matters. The motion included requests for the court to rule on plaintiff Jane Doe’s motion to dismiss counterclaims and to allow her to amend her complaint. According to the court’s order, Goff had submitted these motions over four and a half months ago, alongside his own motion for summary judgment. Discovery in the case is set to close on August 31, 2026, while dispositive motions are due by September 25, 2026. A settlement conference is also scheduled before a magistrate judge on September 1, 2026. Goff’s defense team had previously reached out to the court’s chambers via phone, urging for a swift resolution on his motion for summary judgment. However, the court noted that Goff appeared to misinterpret the tone of its earlier response, which had summarily denied his request for expedited consideration. The court emphasized that it alone determines the prioritization of its docket, stating that criminal cases take precedence, followed by civil cases that are either older or have broader implications across the state. The court further pointed out that the rationale Goff presented, concerns about attorney’s fees, applies equally to all parties involved in litigation. The court granted Goff’s motion for a ruling, though it warned him that his expectations might not align with the outcome. While the court issued a brief summary order addressing the motion, it indicated that a more comprehensive explanation would follow at a later date. In the meantime, the court ordered that both of Jane Doe’s motions were granted. Jane Doe’s motion to dismiss counterclaims sought to eliminate Goff’s counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, which are based on state law. The court determined that these claims are unrelated to Doe’s federal claim and lack an independent jurisdictional basis. As such, Goff’s counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment were dismissed without prejudice due to a lack of jurisdiction. Doe’s motion to amend her complaint aimed to include a new count for the tort of outrage, a state law claim that is directly connected to her federal claim. The court found that it has supplemental jurisdiction over this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), the court should grant leave to amend when justice requires. Since Doe’s motion was timely under the scheduling order, and Goff’s only objection was that he wanted his summary judgment motion decided first, the court deemed this insufficient grounds for denial. Doe was ordered to file her Second Amended Complaint by August 31, 2026. The court declined to address Goff’s motion for summary judgment in detail, noting that the absence of a response from the opposing party does not automatically result in a win for Goff. The court reminded that even in unopposed motions, the moving party must still demonstrate entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Although Goff’s legal arguments may be valid and summary judgment potentially warranted, the court suggested that the matter is complex and possibly involves novel legal questions. Furthermore, resolving the federal question does not necessarily resolve the state law claim, as the court could choose to retain or relinquish supplemental jurisdiction, allowing Alabama courts to handle the remaining issues.