Background
Alpha Connect provides internet service through equipment attached to utility poles. Gerald King, an Alpha shareholder and officer, alleged that statements attributed to Southern Company employee Stephen Mangina derailed Alpha's effort to obtain a pole-attachment agreement, discouraged other businesses from dealing with Alpha, and disrupted King's planned property transaction.
King and Alpha asserted defamation and related business-tort claims. The Jefferson Circuit Court entered judgment on the pleadings for Mangina. That procedure tests legal sufficiency from the pleadings themselves: the court accepts the nonmovant's factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences in that party's favor, without choosing between competing factual accounts.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court reversed. It concluded that the complaint plausibly connected the alleged statements and resulting reputational harm to King and Alpha and adequately alleged claims that could not be rejected by crediting Mangina's competing view of the facts. Whether the plaintiffs can prove the allegations is a later-stage question.
The Court stressed the difference between pleading and proof. A Rule 12(c) ruling cannot resolve disputed facts or deny reasonable inferences supporting the complaint. It left open an unraised Rule 9(g) question concerning the specificity of special harm and remanded for further proceedings.
The opinion’s analysis provides additional detail: “Alpha and King's business relationships with Southern Company (Mississippi Power) and Williams. Taken as true and viewed in Alpha's favor, these allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage, and Rule 8(a) requires no more detail. See, e.g., Johnson v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 517, 519 (Ala. 1985). Nor does Mangina's employment with Southern Company defeat the claim on the pleadings. His employment may (or may not) ultimately bear on whether he was a stranger to a relationship involving Southern Company's subsidiary Mississippi Power. There is simply not enough information at this point to reach such a conclusion. Further, Alpha's claim is not limited to that relationship because it attributes lost business with Williams, the City of Pascagoula, and Crown Castle to Szkolnik's and Mangina's alleged interference. Mangina's employment supplies no obvious immunity as to those separate relationships. Mangina may also ultimately prove that no protectable relationships existed, that he lacked the relevant knowledge, or that he was not a stranger to every alleged relationship — but those are questions for discovery. They do not establish, from the pleadings themselves, that Alpha can prove no set of facts entitling it to relief. Read in Alpha's favor, the complaint adequately alleges an intentional-interference claim. We therefore reverse the circuit court's judgment on the pleadings as to Alpha's intentional-interference claim against Mangina. B. King's Intentional-Interference Claim Against Mangina In the factual portion of the complaint, King alleges the following facts that appear to be relevant to his intentional-interference claim against Mangina: "14. On or about June 30, 2023, Chad Williams and King were headed back from a weeklong sales trip in Birmingham, AL, and Chad called Szkolnik about co-signing for a loan as he wanted to buy a rental property from King which was located in Sylacauga, AL. Szkolnik stated to Chad that she hoped he was not buying the property from King as she heard from a great friend and a source at Southern Company that King is a horrible person and he will lie, cheat, and steal from just about anyone and that he is an elderly woman abuser. "…. "16. Upon information and belief, Stephen Mangina … is employed with Southern Company and apparently was made aware through the”
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 12(c) motion tests the pleadings and does not permit fact weighing.
- Business and individual reputational injuries may overlap when alleged statements concern the individual who directs the company.
- Unraised pleading objections may remain open on remand even when the principal dismissal is reversed.
Why It Matters
For Alabama business litigators, the opinion is a reminder to plead the chain from statement to audience, lost relationship, and resulting injury with concrete facts. Defendants should separate true pleading defects from factual disputes that require discovery or summary judgment.
The ruling does not establish liability. It restores the plaintiffs' opportunity to prove publication, falsity, fault, causation, damages, and the elements of their business claims under the ordinary litigation process.