
    Janice KNIGHT, As Administratrix of the Estate of Charles Knight, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF OZARK, Jimmy Culbreath, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 10-15508
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    April 25, 2011.
    Christopher S. Genereux, Attorney at Law, Birmingham, AL, H. Lewis Gillis, Tyrone Carlton Means, Thomas, Means, Gillis, & Seay, P.C., Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James H. Pike, Shealy, Crum & Pike, P.C., Dothan, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This case arose out of a high-speed police chase of a vehicle driven by a suspected drug trafficker whom the police were trying to arrest. Both vehicles were traveling on the wrong-side of the road, and the suspect’s vehicle struck head on a vehicle driven by plaintiffs decedent, causing his death. Plaintiff, in her representative capacity, brought a multi-count complaint against, among others, the City of Ozark and Ozark Police Sergeant Culbreath for damages and other relief, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for the violation of the decedent’s rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, Counts I and II, and for the violation of the decedent’s rights under Alabama tort law, Counts VII, VIII, XI, and XII. This interlocutory appeal by the City and Culbreath relates to these tort law counts.

The City and Culbreath moved to dismiss the § 1983 claims and the tort law claims for failure to state a claim for relief, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). They also sought dismissal of the tort law claims on grounds of immunity — the City claiming immunity under Ala.Code § 11-47-190 (municipal immunity) and Culbreath claiming immunity under Ala.Code § 6-5-338 (state-agent immunity). The district court, in an order dated November 22, 2010, granted their motions to dismiss the § 1983 claims, and, without mentioning the immunity defenses, ruled that the tort law claims against the City and Culbreath would be “best resolved at summary judgment or trial.” Order at 12. The City and Culbreath are entitled to a ruling on their motions to dismiss based on the immunity grounds. We therefore vacate the district court’s order — to the extend that it deals with the tort law claims — and remand the case for such ruling.

VACATED and REMANDED.  