Dynamic Collision lawsuit dismissed; judge says plaintiffs' goals in suing have been met

The lawsuit aimed at stopping the plan to build a rendering plant in Gadsden is over — except for paying the lawyer's bills.

Etowah County Presiding Judge George Day entered a motion late Monday dismissing the lawsuit as moot "because the Plaintiffs, through this litigation, have achieved all that they sought to achieve when it was commenced."

The case is dismissed, but dismissed without prejudice, meaning that if the defendants were to try in the future to bring a rendering plant to the area, the plaintiffs can take them to court again.

Even though the case ended in a dismissal rather than a defeat, the judge's order states that in this case, the plaintiffs prevailed.

"While, as a procedural matter, this case is being dismissed under governing law on the basis of its mootness, it should be clear that such mootness did not arise by the mere passage of time, or as a result of occurrences in the course of nature," Day wrote.

Legal fees: GAA seeks $400,000 from city for legal fees. What happens if the city doesn't pay?

"... There remain no justiciable controversies because the Plaintiffs, through perseverance, diligence and expenditure of a tremendous amount of time through legal counsel, accomplished what they sought to accomplish," Day said.

The lawsuit challenged zoning at the site where Pilgrim's Pride sought permits for a rendering plant. Neighboring property owner Dynamic Collision sued in 2020, and some 20 additional property owners were allowed to join the claim that the property was not zoned for heavy industry, and that it was a potential nuisance.

The City of Gadsden and the Gadsden Airport Authority were named in the lawsuit; Pilgrim's Pride asked to be added as a defendant later.

A lot has happened since then, and it culminated in the three defendants all stepping away from the project. Pilgrim's Pride announced it was not longer planning to try build there, and surrendered ADEM permits granted or applied for. Both the city and the GAA passed resolutions stating they would not try to build a rendering plant on the property, in an effort to bring litigation to an end.

Despite those resolutions, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit contended that defendants could try to bring a rendering plant to another location. They entered into evidence a transcript of an exchange between a council member and the city attorney as an indication that there had been talks of the plant locating at the former steel plant property.

Day, however, noted that the transcript is in dispute, and even if it were not, it was not sufficient to sustain the legal claims.

The judge cited a March 2022 decision from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Alabama: "Government defendants receive the benefit of the doubt in voluntary-cessation cases: When they voluntarily stop the challenged conduct, a rebuttable presumption arises that they will not reengage in it." (Keister v. Bell, WL 881771, __ F.4th __ (11th Cir. 2022)

According to the order, the judge considered whether the city and GAA had "fundamentally altered" their policies in their voluntary stops to the rendering plant project. He found that they had.

In a Facebook post on the Opposition to the Gadsden Airport Rendering Plant page, plaintiffs' attorney Christie Knowles was ready to take the victory lap.

"When's the celebration?" she asked.

Knowles wrote that the judge's order "somewhat chastises the City and GAA for not entering into a consent order to end this case. Judge Day, in effect, did for the City and GAA what they refused to do — he declared that their actions amounted to an agreement that they would not bring a rendering plant to our county and declared the Opposition to have won the case."

A statement from the City of Gadsden on Tuesday indicated the city "is pleased to read Judge Day’s order dismissing the lawsuit challenging zoning, which will save taxpayers’ money by avoiding continued, lengthy litigation on a matter that has already been resolved.

"The City’s position has always been that the Court lacks constitutional jurisdiction to interject itself into the legislative process, at least, until after the Council has acted," the statement read. "It is a defense based upon fundamental constitutional principles regarding the separation of powers between our respective branches of government.

"Hopefully, the City can now re-allocate taxpayers' dollars to a more productive use," the statement concluded.

"The GAA is very pleased that this case has been dismissed," the authority said it a statement. "For months, the GAA has taken the position that the case was over as a result of the vote of the GAA on Dec. 17, 2021, to reject the proposal for a rendering plant at the airport.

"However, the lawyers for the plaintiffs have continued to refuse to dismiss this case, despite repeated requests. As a result, the taxpayers of Etowah County have been forced to incur legal expenses for a case that the Court has now confirmed is moot," according to the GAA.

"The position of the GAA has always been that this suit was premature because the GAA never took a vote to allow the Pilgrim’s Pride project to proceed," the statement continued." For this project to go forward, among other things, the City would be required to rezone the property and the FAA would be required to approve the project. Because none of those things ever happened, this suit has always been without merit.

"The GAA will oppose any efforts by the lawyers for the Plaintiffs to impose additional attorneys fees on the City of Gadsden or the GAA. The taxpayers of Etowah County should not be required to pay attorney’s fees for a case that has been dismissed as moot," the GAA said.

"The GAA looks forward to devoting its time and resources to its intended purpose: The management and improvement of the airport and serving the citizens of Etowah County," the statement concluded.

Day's noting that the plaintiffs prevailed in the case is important: they are asking that the defendants pay their legal fees; only prevailing parties can seek that in court.

A key question in that determination will be whether the lawsuit brought was of significant benefit to the public, not just to the plaintiffs.

Day set a hearing June 16 to consider that single remaining motion.

"Today should be a day we celebrate the happy conclusion of how a group of citizens, uniting together with perseverance (which was specifically noted by Judge Day), can overcome overwhelming odds to protect the home that they love," Knowles wrote.

A lawsuit accusing the GAA of violating the Open Meetings law remains pending before Circuit Judge Sonny Steen.

Contact Gadsden Times reporter Donna Thornton at 256-393-3284 or donna.thornton@gadsdentimes.com.

This article originally appeared on The Gadsden Times: Gadsden rendering plant lawsuit dismissed: Plaintiffs achieved goal