DOCUMENT 805

AlaFile E-Notice

31-CV-2020-900726.00
Judge: GEORGE C. DAY, JR.
To: KNOWLES CHRISTINA LEE DAS
christie@kkslawgroup.com

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA

DYNAMIC COLLISION, LLC V. GADSDEN AIRPORT AUTHORITY ET AL

31-CV-2020-900726.00

The following matter was FILED on 11/15/2021 12:09:36 PM

C001 DYNAMIC COLLISION, LLC

C002 ZLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
C003 BUTLER PROPERTIES, LLC
C004 GREER CLARK
C005 GREER JORDAN
C006 HARDIN TODD
C007 SHIRLEY BO
C008 INZER CRAIG
C009 WEAVER MARK
C010 WEAVER JERRY
C011 WEAVER HAROLD
C012 WEAVER DENISE
C013 WHITE BRYAN
C014 HOLLAND KEITH
C015 VISE RANDY
C016 LEACH WILLIAM
C017 MINTON JARED
C018 WILLIAMSON LAWRENCE, III
C019 CALDWELL MASON
C020 DRUMMOND TERESA
C021 KING J. CRAIG
C022 HOLT J.D.
C023 PERMAN ENGINEERING CO., INC.
C024 TRENT THRASHER CONSTRUCTION, LLC
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
 DOCUMENT 805

C025 CHOICE FABRICATORS, INC.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
[Filer: SULLIVAN JOSHUA BLAKE]

Notice Date: 11/15/2021 12:09:36 PM

CASSANDRA JOHNSON
CIRCUIT COURT CLERK
ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
801 FORREST AVENUE
SUITE 202
GADSDEN, AL, 35901

256-549-2150
 DOCUMENT 797
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/15/2021 12:09 PM
STATE OF ALABAMA Revised 3/5/08 Case No. 31-CV-2020-900726.00
Unified Judicial System CIRCUIT COURT OF
31-ETOWAH District Court Circuit Court ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
CV202090072600
CASSANDRA JOHNSON, CLERK
CIVIL MOTION COVER SHEET
DYNAMIC COLLISION, LLC V. GADSDEN AIRPORT Name of Filing Party:C001 - DYNAMIC COLLISION, LLC
AUTHORITY ET AL C002 - ZLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
C003 - BUTLER PROPERTIES, LLC
C004 - GREER CLARK
C005 - GREER JORDAN
C006 - HARDIN TODD
C007 - SHIRLEY BO
C008 - INZER CRAIG
C009 - WEAVER MARK
C010 - WEAVER JERRY
C011 - WEAVER HAROLD
C012 - WEAVER DENISE
C013 - WHITE BRYAN
C014 - HOLLAND KEITH
C015 - VISE RANDY
C016 - LEACH WILLIAM
C017 - MINTON JARED
C018 - WILLIAMSON LAWRENCE, III
C019 - CALDWELL MASON
C020 - DRUMMOND TERESA
C021 - KING J. CRAIG
C022 - HOLT J.D.
C023 - PERMAN ENGINEERING CO., INC.
C024 - TRENT THRASHER CONSTRUCTION,
LLC
C025 - CHOICE FABRICATORS, INC.

Name, Address, and Telephone No. of Attorney or Party. If Not Represented. Oral Arguments Requested
JOSHUA B SULLIVAN
413 Broad Street
GADSDEN, AL 35901
Attorney Bar No.: SUL035

TYPE OF MOTION
 DOCUMENT 797
Motions Requiring Fee Motions Not Requiring Fee
Default Judgment ($50.00) Add Party
Joinder in Other Party's Dispositive Motion Amend
(i.e.Summary Judgment, Judgment on the Pleadings, Change of Venue/Transfer
orother Dispositive Motion not pursuant to Rule 12(b))
($50.00) Compel
Judgment on the Pleadings ($50.00) Consolidation
Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Continue
SummaryJudgment($50.00) Deposition
Renewed Dispositive Motion(Summary Designate a Mediator
Judgment,Judgment on the Pleadings, or other Judgment as a Matter of Law (during Trial)
DispositiveMotion not pursuant to Rule 12(b)) ($50.00)
Disburse Funds
Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56($50.00)
Extension of Time
Motion to Intervene ($297.00)
In Limine
Other
Joinder
pursuant to Rule ($50.00)
More Definite Statement
*Motion fees are enumerated in §12-19-71(a). Fees Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)
pursuant to Local Act are not included. Please contact the New Trial
Clerk of the Court regarding applicable local fees.
Objection of Exemptions Claimed
Local Court Costs $ 0 Pendente Lite
Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss
Preliminary Injunction
Protective Order
Quash
Release from Stay of Execution
Sanctions
Sever
Special Practice in Alabama
Stay
Strike
Supplement to Pending Motion
Vacate or Modify
Withdraw
Other
pursuant to Rule (Subject to Filing Fee)
Check here if you have filed or are filing contemoraneously Signature of Attorney or Party
with this motion an Affidavit of Substantial Hardship or if you
Date:
/s/ JOSHUA B SULLIVAN
are filing on behalf of an agency or department of the State,
county, or municipal government. (Pursuant to §6-5-1 Code
11/15/2021 11:56:37 AM
of Alabama (1975), governmental entities are exempt from
prepayment of filing fees)

*This Cover Sheet must be completed and submitted to the Clerk of Court upon the filing of any motion. Each motion should contain a separate Cover Sheet.
**Motions titled 'Motion to Dismiss' that are not pursuant to Rule 12(b) and are in fact Motions for Summary Judgments are subject to filing fee.
 DOCUMENT 798
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/15/2021 12:09 PM
31-CV-2020-900726.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
CASSANDRA JOHNSON, CLERK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA

DYNAMIC COLLISION, LLC, et al. )

)
Plaintiffs )
vs. ) CASE NO.: 31-CV-2020-900726
)
CITY OF GADSDEN, ALABAMA, )
GADSDEN AIRPORT AUTHORITY, )
)
Defendants )

PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Dynamic Collision, LLC, and the

Plaintiff-Intervenors, by and through the undersigned legal counsel and submits
this Emergency Petition for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction
and Permanent Injunction. In support of the foregoing, the undersigned avers as
follows:
The Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenors have learned that the Defendant,
Gadsden Airport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “GAA”) will be conducting
a meeting on November 19, 2021, where it is expected that it will vote to approve
the sell or lease of property to the Defendant, Pilgrim’s Pride, for the operation and
use of a chicken rendering plant on a tract that is currently owned by the GAA and
is located immediately adjacent to the main runway of the Northeast Alabama
Regional Airport. As the Defendant parties have acted both before and throughout
this case, the parties appear to be working in conjunction to bring to fruition a
chicken rendering plant contrary to the widespread and almost unanimous public
opinion against it. This motion is not intending to usurp the authority and
discretion of the GAA, but simply asking this Court to enjoin, restrain and prevent
the GAA from doing what it lacks the legal authority to do. For the reasons provided
for herein, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenors assert as follows:

1
 DOCUMENT 798

1) Any sale and/or lease of the airport property for non-aeronautical purposes
would be in violation of the statutory provision by which the property was conveyed;
2) Any sale and/or lease of the airport property for non-aeronautical purposes
would be contrary and violation of the deed restrictions that apply to the subject
property; and
3) Any sale and/or lease of the airport property for non-aeronautical purposes
could not be executed or otherwise entered into without prior approval from the
FAA.
I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
1. On December 23, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment and Permanent Injunction seeking to enjoin the parties from
selling property located adjacent to the main runway of the Northeast
Alabama Regional Airport to Pilgrim’s Pride for the use of a rendering plant
in the current zoning district of I-1 District (Light Industry). See Doc. #2.
2. Specifically, the Attorney (Jack Lee Roberts) and Building Official (Brian
Harbison) for the City of Gadsden had indicated that the rendering plant
could be permitted and operated in an I-1 Distist (Light Industry).
3. During a previous hearing on a Petition for Preliminary Injunction, the
Building Official testified that the operation of a rendering plant is closer to
an I-2 District (Heavy Industry) classification than an I-1 (Light Industry)
classification. See trial testimony of Brian Harbison from May 24 and May
27, 2021, p. 642 which is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”.
4. This Court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the City of Gadsden
from taking any action to place a rendering plant in an I-1 zoned property.
The City of Gadsden and Pilgrim’s Pride then took the position that they
intended to rezone the property to I-2 District (Heavy Industry) if it was to be
sold for a rendering plant by the Gadsden Airport Authority. Doc 354.

2
 DOCUMENT 798

5. The Plaintiff ’s amended their complaint to add claims of nuisance and spot
zoning should the property be rezoned to I-2 and thereafter Pilgrim’s Pride
intervened in this case. (Doc. 398 and 453).
6. Despite the widespread opposition to the chicken rendering plant, the GAA
has continued to negotiate with Pilgrim’s Pride regarding the sale or lease of
the proposed property to the Defendant, Pilgrim’s Pride.
7. On or about August 20, 2021, the GAA conducted a public meeting for the
purpose of allowing presentations by the Defendant, Pilgrim’s Pride, and a
group of individuals named the Etowah Community. The Etowah
Community is opposed to the rendering plant and has offered to purchase the
same property for a higher price offered by Pilgrim’s Pride.
8. On or about August 27, 2021, the GAA conducted another public meeting in
which it allowed comments from the public regarding the proposed chicken
rendering plant and the competing development. With the exception of five
(5) compensated Pilgrim’s Pride employees, all other individuals spoke out in
opposition to the proposed rendering plant.
9. The GAA has inexplicably continued to consider the Pilgrim’s Pride proposal
and appears to be cooperating with Pilgrim’s to allow it to proceed with
locating its rendering plant at the airport. Despite having no ownership or
contractual right to the subject property, the Plaintiff and
Plaintiff-Intervenors have learned that Pilgrim’s Pride submitted a FAA
Form 7460 (Notice of Proposed Construction) to build at the airport. It is
presently unknown if the GAA authorized the filing of the FAA Form 7460 by
Pilgrim’s Pride but it is undisputed that the GAA knew about the filing yet it
did not object to Pilgrim’s Pride submitting such a request on property it
claims it does not own and for which the GAA claims it has not already
agreed to transfer to Pilgrim’s. It is undisputed that the GAA consultant,
Ken Gilbert, was working aggressively to locate the rendering plant at the
airport before this project became public. See Exhibit H. Mr. Gilbert remains

3
 DOCUMENT 798

the GAA consultant and the GAA has stated that his evaluation of the two
competing projects (Pilgrim’s and Etowah Community) would be a basis upon
which the GAA made their decision. The GAA and Mr. Gilbert had already
agreed to locate the rendering plant at the airport before the public found out
about it in November 2020. Just like it did before the public became aware of
this rendering plant project in November 2020, the GAA and its consultant,
Ken Gilbert, appear to be continuing to work with Pilgrim’s Pride and the
City of Gadsden to locate a rendering plant at the base of the main runway of
the airport.
10. These efforts appear to have resulted in recent actions by the FAA which the
GAA and Pilgrim’s have used to advance the rendering plant toward fruition.
On or about October 21, 2021, the FAA issued a determination that it does
“not object to the construction described” in the Pilgrim’s Pride proposal. See
FAA 7460 Determination Letter dated October 21, 2021 which is attached
hereto as “Exhibit B”1. In its 7460 determination letter, the FAA made clear
that this did not amount to FAA approval of the rendering plant and
reiterated its previous warnings as set forth in its letter to Gadsden Mayor
Sherman Guyton and GAA Chairman, Harry McLendon in January 2021, in
which the FAA made clear its “concerns that the proposed plant is a potential
wildlife attractant and appears to be an incompatible development near the
airport”. See Exhibit B. In the 7460 determination letter, the FAA further
reminded the City of Gadsden and GAA (which are the airport sponsors) that
its “determination does not preempt the airport sponsor’s federal obligations
and does not constitute FAA approval for the physical development involved
in the proposal”. See Exhibit B.

1
The FAA 7460 Determination is merely a finding that the proposed height and
layout of the proposed structure (buildings, smoke stacks, etc.) would not heights
would not interfere with the flight and approach zones. It does not in any way
constitute a determination whether the rendering plant would constitute a potential
wildlife attractant and an incompatible development.

4
 DOCUMENT 798

11. Despite the fact that the FAA determination letter states it does not amount
to FAA approval of the project, the Defendant, Pilgrim’s Pride, has claimed
otherwise. Specifically, Pilgrim’s Pride represented in its public statements
that the FAA determination letter amounts to a confirmation that the
rendering plant “would have no impact on local airport traffic” and that,
based on the FAA determination letter, it is “ready and able” to bring the
rendering plant to the airport. See Pilgrim’s Pride Statements which are
attached hereto as “Exhibit L”.
12. Either acting with a lack of knowledge or complicity, the GAA appears to
have accepted Pilgrim’s Pride representations and is now proceeding to move
forward with a vote on Pilgrim’s Pride proposal to sell or lease the property.
The October 21, 2021 FAA 7460 Determination Letter was made public on
Friday, October 22, 2021, with Pilgrim’s public statements being made that
its position was that this amounted to FAA approval of the project and they
were ready and able to proceed. Almost immediately thereafter, on October
29, 2021, the GAA issued a meeting notice for a specially called meeting on
November 2, 2021. This meeting consisted entirely of an executive session
closed to the public. After this November 2, 2021, meeting GAA members
began discussing that they expected to vote on the Pilgrim’s proposal at its
next meeting scheduled for November 19, 2021.
13. Attached is the notice for this November 19, 2021, meeting which was issued
the same date as this Motion. See GAA Meeting Notice for November 19,
2021 which is attached hereto as “Exhibit M”. Upon information and belief,
the GAA is planning to vote at this meeting on Pilgrim’s Pride proposal. The
Plaintiffs counsel has asked the GAA’s attorney to confirm whether or not a
vote is going to take place and he has refused to respond or confirm other
than confirming that a meeting has been scheduled.
14. Upon information and belief, not only is the GAA prepared to vote for the
Pilgrim’s rendering plant, they are also likely to vote to lease, rather than

5
 DOCUMENT 798

sell, the property to Pilgrim’s. Despite the fact that leasing would be much
less beneficial to the City and GAA because a lease arrangement would result
in no ad valorem taxes for local schools and liability for bird strikes and
wildlife hazards would remain with the GAA as the property owner, the City
and GAA appear to be willing to consider doing whatever it takes to bring a
rendering plant to our county. Upon information and belief, they believe that
a lease, rather than a sale, would avoid the necessity of rezoning the property
and they could then proceed immediately with the project. Leasing the
property to Pilgrim’s was the GAA and City’s original intention as has been
pointed out in prior court proceedings and as set forth in Exhibit H. The fact
the GAA now appears to be making statements that they will vote to lease
the property to Pilgrim’s makes their repeated promises to the Court and the
people of Etowah County assuring them that they will rezone the property “if
there is a sale” ring hollow and suggests their intention all along was to
obtain the 7460 approval and then immediately enter into the originally
intended lease and proceed forthwith.
15. As we learned during the May 24 and 27, 2021, hearings and as noted by the
Court in its June 1, 2021 Order, all due diligence has been completed except
for FAA approval. Pilgrim’s now publicly claim they have that with the 7460
Determination Letter. Therefore, there is a grave concern that the GAA
could vote to lease the property to Pilgrim’s on November 19, 2021, and enter
into said lease that day. This would cause imminent and irreparable harm to
Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenors. Even if the GAA is prepared to vote to
sell, rather than lease, the property to Pilgrim’s Pride the same result is
possible if the GAA and City continue their practice of not waiting for FAA
approval before transferring property. Should that vote be taken and the
GAA take steps to enter into an agreement with Pilgrim’s immediately
thereafter, such an action would be in violation of the statutory purposes of
the property usage and in violation of FAA regulations which require prior

6
 DOCUMENT 798

written approval of any transfer. Such an action would jeopardize the federal
funding and viability of the airport.
16. There is no injunction in place stopping the Defendants from voting on
November 19, 2021, and then immediately entering into a lease and issuing a
permit for construction. The repeated assurances of the Defendants to the
Court and Plaintiffs that rezoning would provide time or some type of
impediment or backstop to any attempts to transfer the property rings hollow
now that they are openly talking about leasing the property to Pilgrim’s.
Therefore, the GAA is due to be enjoined and restrained from executing,
signing or entering into any agreement should it vote to lease, sell or
otherwise transfer the property pending a full hearing on the merits of this
motion, the complaint filed in this action and further orders of this Court.
II. ARGUMENT
A. THE SALE AND/OR LEASE OF THE AIRPORT PROPERTY FOR
NON-AERONAUTICAL PURPOSES WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE
STATUTORY PROVISION BY WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS CONVEYED
In 2003, acting specifically pursuant to Ala. Code §4-3-49, the City of Gadsden
authorized the Mayor to execute a deed to the Gadsden Airport Authority for all
municipal land located at the Gadsden Municipal Airport. Pursuant to Ala. Code
§4-3-49, such conveyance can only be for the “purpose of aiding and cooperating
with the authority in the planning, development, undertaking,
construction, extension, improvement or operation of airports, heliports
and air navigation facilities and other facilities”. See City of Gadsden
Resolution No. R-348-03 which is attached hereto as “Exhibit C”. On June 9, 2004,
the Defendant, City of Gadsden, deeded the property to the GAA by a Warranty
Deed recorded as Instrument #D-2004-3722, a copy of which is attached hereto as
“Exhibit D”. The deed provided that the conveyance was “[s]ubject to all easements,
conditions and restrictions of record, including, but not limited to all the conditions
and restrictions in deeds from the United States of America to the City of Gadsden”.

7
 DOCUMENT 798

In this case, the proposed use of a rendering plant has nothing to do with any
aeronautical purpose. Considering such, any attempt by the GAA to convey, lease
or otherwise dispose of the subject property to Pilgrim’s Pride for the operation of a
chicken rendering plant would be violative of Ala. Code §4-3-49.
B. THE SALE AND/OR LEASE OF THE AIRPORT PROPERTY FOR
NON-AERONAUTICAL PURPOSES WOULD BE CONTRARY AND
VIOLATION OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT APPLY TO THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
The specific property at issue was initially deeded from the United States of
America to the Defendant, City of Gadsden, “to be used for public airport
purposes”. See Quitclaim Deed recorded in Deed Book 343, Page 373 in the Office
of the Judge of Probate, Etowah County, Alabama which is attached hereto as
“Exhibit E”. Said deed further defined “public airport purposes” to
expressly exclude “manufacturing or industrial purposes”. See Exhibit E.
Again, the deed to the GAA made it subject to “all the conditions and
restrictions in deeds from the United States of America to the City of
Gadsden” Any attempt by the GAA to convey, lease or otherwise dispose of the
subject property to Pilgrim’s Pride for the operation of a chicken rendering plant
would be violative of the deed restrictions that are still in effect.
C. ANY CONTRACT TO CONVEY OR LEASE THE AIRPORT
PROPERTY FOR NON-AERONAUTICAL PURPOSES COULD NOT BE
EXECUTED OR OTHERWISE ENTERED INTO WITHOUT PRIOR
APPROVAL FROM THE FAA.
In addition to the deed restrictions, there are regulatory or contractual
provisions which forbid the GAA from entering into any contract to convey or lease
the airport property to Pilgrim’s Pride for non-aeronautical purpose without prior
approval from the FAA. Despite the fact that the property was previously deeded to
the GAA, the City of Gadsden has remained the Sponsor of the Northeast Alabama

8
 DOCUMENT 798

Regional Airport. As Sponsor2, the Defendant, City of Gadsden, has received federal
funds and grants from the United States of America, acting through the Federal
Aviation Administration. Pursuant to the Grant Agreement, the Defendant, City of
Gadsden, has adopted and ratified certain FAA Grant Assurances dated March,
2014. Such Assurances include that it will not sell, lease, encumber, or
otherwise transfer or dispose of any part of its title or other interests in
the property without approval by the Secretary. See Approval Letter for
Airport Improvement Project, Grant Agreement and Grant Assurances which are
attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and Executive Order 13858 which is attached hereto
as “Exhibit G”.
Initially, the Defendants professed that nothing was going on between them
except for “kicking of the tires”. As this Court now knows, Ken Gilbert, the retained
consultant for aviation regulatory compliance for the GAA, sent an email dated July
19, 2020 to the FAA advising it of the proposed transaction, which expressly
included a “rendering facility” which was to be “leased, not sold, so long as lease is a
long-term lease. See email from Ken Gilbert to FAA dated July 19, 2020 which is
attached hereto as “Exhibit H”. In response to the July 19, 2020 email, the FAA
responded that any proposed non-aeronautical lease agreement would have to “...be
submitted to the FAA for review prior to sponsor execution”. See email from
FAA (Wesley Mittlesteadt) to Ken Gilbert dated July 20, 2020 which is attached
hereto as “Exhibit I”.
On or about March 16, 2021, the City of Gadsden and GAA entered into a
Co-Sponsorship Agreement and submitted the same to the FAA. See copy of the
Resolution Authorizing Co-Sponsorship Agreement between The City of Gadsden
and The Gadsden Airport Authority which is attached hereto as “Exhibit H”3. Said

2
The Sponsor is the entity that is legally, financially, and otherwise able to assume
and carry out the certifications, representations, warranties, assurances, covenants,
and other obligations required for an airport. Pursuant to 49 USC §47102(26), it is
the public agency that submits to the Secretary of the FAA an application for
financial assistance.
3
The City Council approved the Co-Sponsorship Agreement during a council

9
 DOCUMENT 798

Co-Sponsorship Agreement provided that both the City of Gadsden and GAA agreed
“...to comply with Grant Assurances with respect to the Authority Property”.
In further support of the Plaintiffs’ argument, the undersigned counsel
received an email confirmation from the FAA that it would have to approve the
non-aeronautical use of the property “before a lease is signed”. See email
exchange from Alexa J. Griggs and Jeff Orr with the FAA dated November 10, 2021
which is attached hereto as “Exhibit J”.
III. REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Upon information and belief, the GAA intends to vote and approve a long term
lease with Pilgrim’s Pride to allow it to construct and operate a chicken rendering
plant on GAA property. Any proposed lease would be invalid in that it would be in
violation of Ala. Code §4-3-49 or applicable deed restrictions. In the alternative,
any attempt to contract for the lease/sale of the property without FAA approval will
result in a finding of non-compliance and subject the City of Gadsden and GAA to
the the revocation of its public funding from the FAA or even potentially result in
the closure of the Northeast Alabama Regional Airport.
Based upon the impending GAA meeting and prior course of action and
dealings between the Defendants, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff Intervenors, the
likelihood of harm would both be immediate and irreparable. The GAA will
undoubtedly argue that it will not attempt to sell or lease the property without FAA
approval. However, the City and GAA have a history of transferring airport
property without first obtaining FAA consent. On October 2, 2020, the City of
Gadsden received a Noncompliance Letter from the FAA concerning the fact that it
had previously deeded and conveyed the airport property to the GAA without
consent or permission from the FAA. In response, Mayor Sherman Guyton and then
Chairman of the GAA, Harry McClendon, admitted to the FAA that the City of

meeting on March 16, 2021. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenors previously

made an Open Record Act request for the executed Co-Sponsorship Agreement. To
date, the City of Gadsden has not provided a copy. Legal counsel for the City of
Gadsden has recently agreed to provide a copy of the same, but it has not been
received as of the present date.

10
 DOCUMENT 798

Gadsden had not received the written consent and approval prior to the land
transfer. See letter from City of Gadsden and GAA regarding FAA Noncompliance
Letter which is attached hereto as “Exhibit K”. The City of Gadsden and GAA have
a history of asking for forgiveness rather than permission from the FAA with non
compliant property transfers which shows the likelihood of irreparable harm.
If the GAA and City of Gadsden plan on voting on November 19, 2021 and then
quickly leasing or deeding the property to Pilgrim’s without FAA consent as it has
done in the past, the damage to the Plaintiff, Plaintiff-Intervenors and Etowah
County would be irreparable. Unless an injunction is entered against the
Defendants, GAA, City of Gadsden and Pilgrim’s Pride, any attempt to enter into a
contract to sell or lease the subject property to Pilgrim’s Pride for the construction
and operation of a rendering plant will cause the Plaintiff and/or
Plaintiff-Intervenors further injury to which any remedy at law would be
inadequate. Certain Plaintiff-Intervenors rely upon the airport for their travel and
business purposes. The loss of funding and/or closure of the airport would have a
devastating effect upon them. Unless injunctive relief is granted, the Plaintiff and
Plaintiff Intervenors would have no adequate remedy at law.
Based upon the aforementioned facts and arguments, the Plaintiff and
Plaintiff Intervenors have a reasonable chance of success on the merits and any
hardship imposed on the Defendant would not unreasonably outweigh the benefit
accruing to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff Intervenors.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff
Intervenors respectfully request that this Court enter a temporary restraining
order, preliminary injunction and/or permanently injunction restraining and
enjoining the Defendant’s, GAA and Pilgrim’s Pride, from doing the following:
a) to sign, execute or take any other action to enter into any agreement to
sell, lease or otherwise allow the use of the GAA property for the purposes of the
construction and/or operation of a rendering plant as being in violation of Ala. Code
§4-3-49 and/or deed restrictions; and/or

11
 DOCUMENT 798

b) to sign, execute or take any other action enter into an agreement to

contract to convey, deed, lease or otherwise allow the use of the GAA property for
the construction and/or operation of a rendering plant without receiving approval
from the FAA.
s/ Joshua B. Sullivan
Counsel for Plaintiff, Dynamic
Collision, LLC

s/ Christie D. Knowles
Counsel for Plaintiff Intervenors

OF COUNSEL:
KNOWLES & SULLIVAN, LLC
413 Broad Street
Gadsden, Alabama 35901
(256) 547-7200, Fax: (256) 467-6322

/s/Phillip W. Williams,Jr.
Counsel for Plaintiff Intervenors

/s/ Jonathan Huffstutler

Counsel for Plaintiff Intervenors

OF COUNSEL:
Williams, Driskill, Huffstutler & King
2100 Club Drive, Suite 150
Gadsden, AL 35901
256-442-0201
phil@williamsattorneyatlaw.com

12
 DOCUMENT 798

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that on the 15th day of November, 2021, a copy of the
foregoing was served upon counsel for all parties via the Alafile Court’s electronic
filing system to all counsel of record in this matter.

Phillip Williams, Jr.

Jonathan A. Huffstutler
Bradley Cornett
Jack Roberts
Christopher Hamer
Benjamin Goldman
Kathryn Zickert
Robert Baugh
James Williams

s/Joshua B. Sullivan

13
DOCUMENT 799
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/15/2021 12:09 PM
31-CV-2020-900726.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
CASSANDRA JOHNSON, CLERK
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 799
DOCUMENT 800
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/15/2021 12:09 PM
31-CV-2020-900726.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
CASSANDRA JOHNSON, CLERK
DOCUMENT 800
DOCUMENT 800
DOCUMENT 801
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/15/2021 12:09 PM
31-CV-2020-900726.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
CASSANDRA JOHNSON, CLERK
DOCUMENT 801
DOCUMENT 801
DOCUMENT 801
DOCUMENT 801
DOCUMENT 801
DOCUMENT 801
DOCUMENT 801
DOCUMENT 802
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/15/2021 12:09 PM
31-CV-2020-900726.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
CASSANDRA JOHNSON, CLERK
DOCUMENT 802
DOCUMENT 802
DOCUMENT 802
DOCUMENT 802
DOCUMENT 802
DOCUMENT 802
DOCUMENT 802
DOCUMENT 802
DOCUMENT 802
DOCUMENT 803
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/15/2021 12:09 PM
31-CV-2020-900726.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
CASSANDRA JOHNSON, CLERK
DOCUMENT 803
DOCUMENT 803
DOCUMENT 803
DOCUMENT 803
DOCUMENT 803
DOCUMENT 803
DOCUMENT 803
DOCUMENT 804
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/15/2021 12:09 PM
31-CV-2020-900726.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
CASSANDRA JOHNSON, CLERK
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804
DOCUMENT 804