Herring-Malbis I, LLC, Eastern Shore Centre I, LLC, and Eastern Shore Centre II, LLC v. TEMCO, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/30/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080296 H e r r i n g - M a l b i s I , LLC, E a s t e r n Shore Centre I, LLC, and E a s t e r n Shore Centre I I , LLC v. TEMCO, I n c . Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t (CV-06-495) PITTMAN, Judge. Herring-Malbis Eastern appeal Court Shore Centre f r o m an o r d e r I , LLC; Eastern Shore I I , LLC ( c o l l e c t i v e l y o f the Baldwin Circuit Centre I , LLC; and "Herring-Malbis") Court a w a r d i n g an 2080296 attorney f e e t o TEMCO, I n c . 1975, 8-29-1 § Payment A c t . attorney 1 et We seq., ("TEMCO"), p u r s u a n t t o A l a . C o d e usually reverse referred the t r i a l to court's as order the Prompt awarding an f e e t o TEMCO. TEMCO sued Herring-Malbis in May 2006, alleging that TEMCO was owed money " p u r s u a n t t o t h e t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o f " contract documents construction Architects AIA contract contract, contract"), agreement interest sought stated, work labor contract, and the American included Institute - 1997" incorporated the damages into of i n the contract, and moved was open for granted of an order the terms by the of parties' of TEMCO's $486,303 account, enforcement r e s o l u t i o n under motion amount a ("the several alternative theories done, Herring-Malbis dispute which i n the construction contract. including breach alternative parties, standard and c o s t s under and the "AIA Document A201 was relief, lien. a titled that complaint by and by r e f e r e n c e original plus signed of account mechanic's compelling of circuit the AIA court. T h e o f f i c i a l d e s i g n a t i o n o f t h i s a c t i s "The D e b o r a h K. M i l l e r A c t , " b u t A l a b a m a c o u r t s u s e t h e name " P r o m p t P a y m e n t A c t " f r e q u e n t l y , a n d we u s e i t i n t h i s o p i n i o n b e c a u s e i t i s the t e r m u s e d by t h e p a r t i e s and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i n t h i s case. 1 2 2080296 The circuit ordered court, that alternative referring "said dispute t o TEMCO's o r i g i n a l claims are due to be complaint, referred resolution." Pursuant t o theAIA contract, thep a r t i e s f i r s t to resolve failed, their they dispute through arbitrated their mediation, dispute through F e b r u a r y 19 a n d 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 . S i x days b e f o r e court on F e b r u a r y a motion averred that incorporate have been the purposes included heretofore the complaint be p r e s e n t e d forthcoming the the issues a matter that that to said t o be p r e s e n t e d statute." a t t o r n e y s ' fees and The motion to [thecircuit an award 3 further " i n no way a f f e c t s to the Arbitrator but[] the A r b i t r a t o r enters process and " t o add a c l a i m under t h e Prompt Payment A c t c l a i m t o be p r e s e n t e d which to the Arbitrator at P r o m p t P a y m e n t A c t ... f o r r e a s o n a b l e posited arbitration hearing" pursuant were t o and a r b i t r a t i o n the expenses The m o t i o n a n d ... [ d ] e f e n d a n t [ s ] i n the mediation and which w i l l i n the circuit complaint. o f amending " a l l of the claims was h e l d on t h e commencement o f 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 , TEMCO f i l e d t o amend i t s o r i g i n a l that the American The a r b i t r a t i o n h e a r i n g hearing, attempted a n d when Arbitration Association. the to c]ourt i n favor rather i s i n t h e event o f TEMCO." No 2080296 action was taken on t h e motion prior to the arbitration hearing. In accordance with procedural rules of A r b i t r a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , TEMCO t h e n p r e s e n t e d and Herring-Malbis counterclaim, itemized presented to the arbitrator. i t s claims forrelief accumulated i n t e r e s t , an award theories Prompt of relief, Payment TEMCO's p r i n c i p a l After that answering and i n c l u d e d f e e and any mention The demand c l a i m was t h a t statement and a request f o r mention o f any c l a i m i n c l u d i n g any r i g h t Act. a demand l e t t e r , I n i t s d e m a n d l e t t e r , TEMCO but i t omitted o f an a t t o r n e y construction an the American for of particular to relief under t h e letter d i d specify i t was due r e l i e f that under t h e contract. the hearing, the arbitrator rendered TEMCO w a s o w e d m o s t o f w h a t i t c l a i m e d . 2 a decision The a r b i t r a t o r S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n i t s d e m a n d l e t t e r TEMCO c l a i m e d t h a t i t was owed $486,303 p l u s a c c u m u l a t e d i n t e r e s t on a r e t a i n a g e c l a i m , $55,264.70 p l u s a c c u m u l a t e d i n t e r e s t f o r work p e r f o r m e d to meet Alabama Department o f Environmental Management ("ADEM") r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d f o r TEMCO's p a y m e n t o f a f i n e l e v i e d b y ADEM, a n d $ 1 9 , 8 4 5 p l u s a c c u m u l a t e d i n t e r e s t f o r o t h e r f e e s p a i d t o a t h i r d p a r t y b y TEMCO o n b e h a l f o f H e r r i n g - M a l b i s . The arbitrator, finding TEMCO 10-20% at fault for circumstances u n d e r l y i n g t h e r e t a i n a g e c l a i m , a w a r d e d TEMCO 8 5 % o f t h a t c l a i m , a n d i t a w a r d e d TEMCO t h e e n t i r e claim s e e k i n g $19,845. The a r b i t r a t o r d i d n o t f i n d i n f a v o r o f 2 4 2080296 also specified that own a t t o r n e y f e e s . each party that " [ a ] l l hereby[] denied," claims thereby reference then award to denying accumulated i n t e r e s t made by filed briefs be fees and been held, concerning by Herring-Malbis 2008, after Herring-Malbis original motion complaint. t o amend TEMCO then filed which Herring-Malbis moved deleting the TEMCO timely the arbitration the granted Herring-Malbis's to dismiss award. court a 13 m o t i o n t o a m e n d court complaint tendered hearing had i n the circuit The c i r c u i t i t s amended the of the arbitration filed and o v e r r u l e d TEMCO a n d whether awarding r e s p o n s e i n o p p o s i t i o n t o TEMCO's F e b r u a r y its by f o r an No c h a n g e s t o t h e a w a r d w e r e p a y m e n t t o TEMCO i n s a t i s f a c t i o n i n April i t srequest modified i tsought. the arbitrator. Then, TEMCO by herein are on a n y o f i t s c l a i m s . should attorney concluded not expressly granted award o f accumulated i n t e r e s t arbitrator's be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s The a r b i t r a t i o n - a w a r d l e t t e r stating Herring-Malbis would i n May that TEMCO's objections. 2008, after complaint. The TEMCO o n i t s c l a i m s e e k i n g $ 5 5 , 2 6 4 . 7 0 , s o t h e t o t a l a m o u n t o f t h e a r b i t r a t o r ' s a w a r d i n f a v o r o f TEMCO, a p p a r e n t l y r o u n d e d down t o t h e n e a r e s t d o l l a r , w a s $ 4 3 3 , 2 0 2 . Herring-Malbis's c o u n t e r c l a i m was d e n i e d , a n d t h e a r b i t r a t o r a s s e s s e d t h e c o s t s of t h e a r b i t r a t i o n proceeding against H e r r i n g - M a l b i s . 5 2080296 circuit court stipulation attorney the denied the latter motion, and, f o l l o w i n g b y t h e p a r t i e s as t o t h e amount o f a a reasonable f e e and a f u r t h e r agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s t o a l l o w circuit c o u r t t o r u l e on t h e m a t t e r w i t h o u t circuit court entered an order attorney f e e t o TEMCO, " p u r s u a n t awarding a hearing, the the stipulated t o t h e Prompt Payment A c t , " i n November 2008. The amended assert a pursuant complaint separate ultimately filed claim requesting only b y TEMCO d i d n o t attorney t o t h e P r o m p t Payment A c t , i n t h e manner m o t i o n t o amend h a d s u g g e s t e d TEMCO h a d i n t e n d e d t h e manner t h a t t h e c i r c u i t purported Act as another sought complete complaint, and t o award. defendants, In novo. alternative legal relief. relief which interest, this First, case, as then that i t s t o do a n d i n o f November 2008 h a d TEMCO a s s e r t e d t h e P r o m p t P a y m e n t Under TEMCO i n c o r p o r a t e d demanded including Rather, court's order fees, theory Count under 10 t h e remainder which of the TEMCO amended of the complaint to a l l of i t s claims against a l l totaled specifically costs, expenses, the standard the pertinent $561,412.70, and a t t o r n e y of appellate review facts are undisputed, 6 fees. see, i s de e.g., 2080296 R e y n o l d s v. C o l o n i a l Bank, (citing cases). testimony; exhibits, e.g., Further, instead, briefs, issue before, decision -- and substance and submitted i s not readily the appellate two-day a r b i t r a t i o n hearing at that record a formality rules mention omission was hearing, may be fees to, the amenable contains to appellate evidence at thehearing. neither matter court o f what did Arbitration Association Payment TEMCO a s s e r t s was d i s c u s s e d d i d not Act, but that neither matter i n i t s appellate at thearbitration but i t s statements i ni t s b r i e f arenot evidence considered on a p p e a l . R.P. 7 not w r i t t e n b y TEMCO the a r b i t r a t i o n process o r t h e Prompt review no t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e and t h e c i r c u i t by American actually arbitrator for does n o t c o n c l u s i v e l y e s t a b l i s h t h a t that pleadings, of the issues The demand l e t t e r to initiate attorney discussed brief required i n order on 1081 ( A l a . 1991). n o r any other hearing, r e v i e w any such e v i d e n c e . as no of the parties, see, 578 S o . 2 d 1079, because transpired 1993) o f o u r a n a l y s i s , we n o t e t h a t o n e p e r t i n e n t the nature litigated (Ala. received court i t sjudgment and t h e s t i p u l a t i o n the outset -- the circuit i t based Tate v. Kennedy, At 874 S o . 2 d 4 9 7 , 5 0 1 - 0 2 Indus., I n c . v. S that & M 2080296 Equip. C o . , 8 9 6 S o . 2 d 4 6 0 , 468 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) Adams, 295 A l a . 5 8 , 6 1 , 3 2 2 S o . 2 d 7 0 6 , 708 Having noted the l i m i t a t i o n s turn to general (citing principles (1975)). of the appellate of applicable Cooper v. record, law. we Because a r b i t r a t i o n i s l a r g e l y a matter of contract, the a r b i t r a b i l i t y of a particular attorney-fee well such as a p a r t y ' s (Ala. See Ex p a r t e So. 2 d 507, 517-18 predispute arbitration interstate commerce, § particular 1 (Ala. submitted to the 797 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 9 , 1 0 8 4 - 8 5 2002). agreement. e t s e q . , preempts 1975, § t o an agreement as C o . v . DPF A r c h i t e c t s , the Federal A l a . Code expressly Messer, 2 0 0 1 ) ; L e e L. S a a d C o n s t r . U.S.C. entitlement award, i s d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e p a r t i e s ' as b y t h e scope o f t h e i s s u e s arbitrator. 851 dispute, 3 At issue here As t o c o n t r a c t s Arbitration P.C., i s a involving A c t ("FAA"), 9 conflicting Alabama law,i n 8-1-41(3), thereby making I n i t s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f , TEMCO c i t e s S a a d , 8 5 1 S o . 2 d a t 517 ("an a r b i t r a t o r ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s l i m i t e d t o t h e s c o p e o f the submission"), f o rthe proposition that arbitrators lack a u t h o r i t y t o r e n d e r j u d g m e n t on a t t o r n e y - f e e i s s u e s when n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u e s t e d t o d o s o b y t h e p a r t i e s , t h o u g h TEMCO m e n t i o n s e a r l i e r i n t h e same p a s s a g e t h a t t h e a r b i t r a t o r ' s " j u r i s d i c t i o n " i s determined a l s o by t h e c o n t r a c t documents. Saad, moreover, c o n t i n u e s i n s u c c e e d i n g p a r a g r a p h s t o e x p l a i n that whether t h e p a r t i e s "agreed t o submit" p a r t i c u l a r claims to arbitration requires an e x a m i n a t i o n of the parties' c o n t r a c t documents. I d . a t 518. 3 8 2080296 predispute arbitration specifically Juliano, 2d enforceable. 949 797 So. So. at 2d the Leland this FAA. See, the e.g., Volt Bldg. Co. parte Messer, same Info. circuit time, S c i . , Inc. the court the U.S. that involved does not conflict Board of 468, v. Trs. of (1989). In TEMCO d o e s not 477-78 and i n t e r s t a t e commerce. Arbitrators that is court have render purposes of a claim Supreme court, and on same Lanier, Ins. 534 Co. authority may 790 to and issue has a the dispute conclusive held that of 2d of 922, Y o r k v. Further, of action].'" 928 trial judgment. For example, Ala. 229 a r b i t r a t i o n award competent founded Old Co. Republic (quoting Ala. Code 1975, 9 the a subsequent s u i t ( A l a . 2000) Garner, them a for "an parties before authority preclusion, pleaded i n bar [cause o f New (1934)). and over n a t u r e of a judgment or decree of a be So. binding Court 'partakes of the the t r a n s a c t i o n between the essentially identical to Alabama underlying FAA does not v. determined, dispute, contracts McKay J u n i o r U n i v . , 489 the such ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ; Ex 884-85 At in i n a r e a s where Alabama law See Stanford case, 882, 1082. preempt s t a t e law with agreements 39, § 41, 6-6-14, Ins. Glens 155 So. v. Falls 533, provides: 2080296 "An a w a r d made s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h the provisions of this division i s conclusive between t h e p a r t i e s t h e r e t o and t h e i r p r i v i e s as t o the matter s u b m i t t e d and cannot be i n q u i r e d i n t o o r impeached f o r want o f form o r f o r i r r e g u l a r i t y i f the award determines the matter or controversy submitted, and such award i s f i n a l , unless the arbitrators are guilty of fraud, p a r t i a l i t y , or c o r r u p t i o n i n making i t . " When returned jurisdiction, of a Moss "upon w h i c h previous apply codification o f competent award has " t h e f o r c e and 1975, § 6-6-12, effect a n d becomes 6 1 5 , 618, 179 So. 2 d a cases," 7 4 1 , 743 Messer, arising submitted o f § 6-6-12). state-law principles incorporated into t h e scope of contract and e f f e c t 797 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 8 2 . the parties' agreement out of or related f i r s t to mediation, interpretation o f an arbitration The A I A c o n t r a c t provides to the contract" t h a t "any shall and i n t h e event mediation r e s o l v e t h e d i s p u t e , as o c c u r r e d submitted to a r b i t r a t i o n . it court e x e c u t i o n may i s s u e a s i n o t h e r 278 A l a . i n determining agreement. claim circuit ( q u o t i n g A l a . C o d e 1 9 4 0 (Recomp. 1 9 5 8 ) , t i t . 7, § 8 3 4 , Ordinary to A l a . Code v. Upchurch, (1965) the an a r b i t r a t i o n judgment," judgment t o an Alabama here, be fails t h e c l a i m i s t o be Where t h e c o n t r a c t d e f i n e s " c l a i m , " includes i n that definition "other d i s p u t e s and matters i n 10 2080296 question or between relating to "When p a r t i e s intend the Valentine (5th [Herring-Malbis] the Contract," include clause to such Inc. 1993). To Cir. Court's holding [TEMCO] a r i s i n g sweepingly a l l aspects of 981 like effect is arbitration in the arbitration Reynolds The relief in contract clauses Co. 1996). AIA v. AIA that King arbitration demanded." arbitration 689 "must Finally, will assert proceed to." 2d the which Rule 44(d) include ... may 1, 2-3 an award that of "the award attorneys' 11 of (Ala. seeking i s permitted fees to that Industry Association, the & a l l Claims Construction Rules of the American A r b i t r a t i o n that than contract further provides under the Reynolds demand Arbitration provides Supreme application on w h i c h a r b i t r a t i o n the AIA n.2 including So. i n the they 213 Alabama relating Inc., 210, c o n t r a c t f u r t h e r s t a t e s that the p a r t y t h e n known t o t h a t p a r t y be "or Autos., clause, F.2d broader omit clause. (emphasis added) have of relationship." clauses language " a r i s i n g out of or r e l a t i n g t o " appears the the out broad arbitration Donau C o r p . , v. that a a broad reach Sugars, and of arbitrator i f a l l parties 2080296 have requested their such arbitration We hold an award or i ti s authorized agreement." that TEMCO by law or 4 was required by the arbitration agreement, a n d b y law, t o s u b m i t i t s Prompt Payment A c t c l a i m , including the request arbitrator. Hence, f o r an award o f an a t t o r n e y i f , a s TEMCO c l a i m s , submit t h e issue t o t h e a r b i t r a t o r , fact made a attorney-fee determination award i s complaint, the additional alternative complete r e l i e f . including Prompt Hence, the request immaterial. theory the parties d i dnot whether t h e a r b i t r a t o r i n concerning Payment fee, to the TEMCO's In 5 Act under TEMCO's was asserted which t h e e n t i r e Prompt f o r an award right TEMCO t o an amended as an demanded Payment A c t c l a i m , o f an a t t o r n e y f e e , was Although t h e Construction Industry A r b i t r a t i o n Rules o f t h e A m e r i c a n A r b i t r a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n do n o t a p p e a r i n t h e record, we t a k e judicial notice o f them. Chris Myers P o n t i a c - G M C , I n c . v . P e r o t , 991 So. 2 d 1 2 8 1 , 1284 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) . 4 O f c o u r s e , i f TEMCO's p o s i t i o n i s f a c t u a l l y i n c o r r e c t , a n d t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e i s s u e w a s s u b m i t t e d t o t h e a r b i t r a t o r -¬ t h a t i s , i f TEMCO " r e q u e s t e d s u c h a n a w a r d " -- d u r i n g t h e hearing, then t h e a r b i t r a t o r ' s d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e issue would i t s e l f be c o n c l u s i v e and a u t h o r i t a t i v e , as Alabama s t a t u t e s , Alabama cases, and t h eAmerican A r b i t r a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n r u l e s incorporated by the p a r t i e s ' agreement, a l l cited above, provide. 5 12 2080296 within t h e ambit "claim," quoted of the contract above, documents' a n d TEMCO w a s r e q u i r e d Prompt Payment A c t c l a i m t o t h e a r b i t r a t o r , in light of the contractual demanding then be arbitration the Prompt Because Payment complaint, filed t h e time The arbitration basis the i t s intent court also t o be demanded," c o n t r a r y an a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y TEMCO's o n l y For a particular arbitration, legal (citing the parties H.L. Dev. Bd. o f V i n c e n t , 13 no legal basis f o r claim or grievance must Fuller 465 t o TEMCO's f e e and ( b ) t h a t 896 Industrial the "on w h i c h documents p r o v i d e d agreement. at its before was a c l a i m exclude such c l a i m i n t h e a r b i t r a t i o n 2d to assert t o amend s i x days to hearing. the contract s u c h an award. So. parties i spermitted i n i t s motion Prompt Payment A c t p r o v i d e d from that t h a t c l a i m c e r t a i n l y w a s " k n o w n t o " TEMCO i spermitted excluded stating of waiver, i n t h e demand a l l C l a i m s TEMCO i n d i c a t e d Payment A c t c l a i m ( a )that of t o submit i t s on p a i n on w h i c h a r b i t r a t i o n i n the circuit for requesting seeking be assert of the arbitration Prompt assertions provision Act claim arbitration hearing, at "must known t o t h a t p a r t y demanded." definition to expressly R.P. I n d u s . , Constr. Co. 590 S o . 2 d 2 1 8 , 2 2 3 v. (Ala. 2080296 1991)). TEMCO a r g u e s t h a t recovery of attorney assertion 3.18.1, fees to a but i tcites TEMCO h a d a g r e e d claim "provided Work itself), negligent acts w e l l as o t h e r case, concerns at paragraph by available thereunder limitation otherwise We effect, 13.4.1 of duties, note nothing controversies substantive that more contractual 14 by t h e and n o t c l a i m s of "[d]uties and o b l i g a t i o n s and r i g h t s rights and to remedies and n o t a and remedies law." a r b i t r a t i o n terms agreements of parties, than the AIA contract t o a p a r t i c u l a r forum; rights (other are inapplicable to this obligations, than or death, or caused i n addition imposed o r a v a i l a b l e by also ... i s Further, that be attorney That p r o v i s i o n , as disputes Document shall paragraph claim property o f [TEMCO]." damage. the Contract such the extent contractual injury or property provides imposed or omissions to as disease of tangible but only such f o r this not to pursue that p r o v i s i o n s TEMCO c i t e s , which bodily as s u p p o r t to bodily injury, sickness, i n j u r y to or destruction the does n o t a l l o w t h e i n the AIA contract which related attributable to fees, provisions under theAIA contract even to submit they when are, i n substantive do n o t a f f e c t t h e those rights are 2080296 provided by s t a t u t e . Chrysler-Plymouth, v. Fleetwood See M i t s u b i s h i Inc., Motors 4 7 3 U.S. 6 1 4 , 62 7 Homes o f G e o r g i a , the 2005). TEMCO h a d t h e same question claims o f an a t t o r n e y v. (1985); 2 5 3 F . 3 d 6 1 1 , 617 2001); and P a t r i o t Mfg., I n c . v. Jackson, (Ala. Corp. Soler Cunningham (11th C i r . 929 S o . 2 d 9 9 7 , 1 0 0 4 legal basis f o r submitting fee to the a r b i t r a t o r that i t t o have had f o r s u b m i t t i n g that question to the c i r c u i t to assert in arbitration court. Being "all claims," asserted, relief the contractually required and i n order to avoid TEMCO was r e q u i r e d to bring s u p p o r t e d b y t h e "same n u c l e u s a r b i t r a t o r ; otherwise, those prosecution b y TEMCO i n a s e p a r a t e So. 928. 2d at judicata judgments "(1) of the preclusion applies Under a p r i o r judgment Id. of operative claims p a r t i e s , a n d (4) w i t h Equity (3) w i t h as i t a p p l i e s t o of res judicata are substantial court identity of action of presented R e s . Mgmt., I n c . v . V i n s o n , 15 790 of res (2) r e n d e r e d b y a t h e same c a u s e from Old Republic, law, the doctrine The e l e m e n t s of facts" to w o u l d be b a r r e d action. on t h e m e r i t s , jurisdiction, in both actions." a l l legal theories t o a r b i t r a t i o n awards j u s t of courts. competent Alabama of claims not 723 So. 2080296 2d 6 3 4 , 636 any claims the ( A l a . 1998). that earlier Jackson, As were, or that action. Id. to those elements, arbitrator i t s demand specified that It i s equally the The action," The brought in I n s . Co. v. (Ala. 1990)). that the a r b i t r a t o r ' s as t o l i a b i l i t y substantive any r e l i e f because the f i n d i n g s , along with for arbitration, claim and underlying and t h e m o n e t a r y TEMCO h a d p r e s e n t e d the a r b i t r a t o r not expressly granted was were element of res j u d i c a t a , " t h e same i s met i n this case, already used a s we to p r e s e n t t h e same c a u s e have determine cause whether different o f a c t i o n -- w h e t h e r t h e p r i m a r y a n d d u t y o r w r o n g a r e t h e same, w h e t h e r v a r i o u s arise from the same e v i d e n c e Republic, 790 So. nucleus supports 2d at of suggested. right t h e same denied. identical. fourth tests further t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e a r b i t r a t i o n and t o c i r c u i t - c o u r t proceeding established claims been," Dairyland i t i s clear findings, clear that subsequent have relitigating a p r i o r d e c i s i o n on t h e m e r i t s , a m o u n t s a w a r d e d on e a c h in (citing provided specific f o r those i s b a r r e d from "could 566 S o . 2 d 7 2 3 , 7 2 5 - 2 6 award c o n s t i t u t e s bases A party of operative facts, a l l the separate 928 -- 16 are and whether actions, satisfied theories by see O l d both of 2080296 TEMCO's complaints. amended complaint, beginning, then numbered In both TEMCO listed counts, stated each each the original of complaint i t s contended claim which forrelief and t h e facts at the separately incorporated the opening statement o f f a c t s , and then s t a t e d t h e r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f the l e g a l theory. Count For example, 10, a s s e r t i n g incorporated a claim the statement $541,567 p l u s i n TEMCO's a m e n d e d under of facts interest, costs, t h e Prompt under complaint, Payment A c t , and r e q u e s t e d expenses, i n a total of and a t t o r n e y fees. We f u r t h e r r e j e c t TEMCO's a r g u m e n t t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t i t s motion court's to amend i t soriginal ruling, arbitrator's guidelines amount not " s t r i c t l y " correct i n noting govern such procedural that issues an requirements i n Alabama Doctor's Assocs., followed. the substantive as i ti s A l a . decision (1996)), to, i n effect, and the "appeal" circuit of the j u d g m e n t u n d e r t h e FAA e v e n t h o u g h p e r t i n e n t FAA were agreements, complaint, Although provisions the e n f o r c e a b i l i t y Code (see, I n c . v. e.g., V o l t , Casarotto, a n d TEMCO i n i t s a p p e l l a t e 17 from o f t h e FAA of a r b i t r a t i o n 1 9 7 5 , § 6-6-15, t h a t f o r appealing governs the an a r b i t r a t o r ' s 4 8 9 U.S. 517 TEMCO i s U.S. at 476-77; 6 8 1 , 688 b r i e f e s s e n t i a l l y admits 2080296 that i t d i d not follow appeals signed any s t a t u t o r y o f a r b i t r a t i o n awards. by t h e p a r t i e s provides Contract shall Project Shaner, seeking judicial explained appeal, before above. court," motions relief that H o r t o n Homes, I n c . Filing contract a separate i n a issues clear and i n documents, as court viewed the parties a n d r u l e d on and i n so d o i n g raise on a p p e a l , f e e t o TEMCO, i s u n a v a i l i n g , b e c a u s e court's improper motions i n t o a proper failure to i t s Prompt recognize Payment 18 of t o TEMCO's a s s e r t i o n s o n and b r i e f s by t h e p a r t i e s , do n o t t r a n s f o r m to bring the c i r c u i t f r o m an i s not the equivalent by t h e p a r t i e s ' t h e same circuit claims Thus, and c o n t r a r y a w a r d i n g an a t t o r n e y required "[t]he where t h e r e v i e w o f a n a w a r d , a s TEMCO a s s e r t s , was b a r r e d considered The seeking the a r b i t r a t i o n hearing related the fact numerous first 999 S o . 2 d 4 6 2 , 467 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) . to s p l i t event facts contract i . e . , Alabama. award i n t h e c i r c u i t s i x days attempt any the AIA p e r t i n e n t p r o v i s i o n i n Alabama's a r b i t r a t i o n s t a t u t e , [arbitrator's] motion governing a t p a r a g r a p h 13.1.1 t h a t § 6-6-15, " c o n t e m p l a t e s a p a r t y ' s v. Further, be g o v e r n e d by t h e l a w o f t h e p l a c e i s located," The procedures i n such appeal. that TEMCO was Act claim before the 2080296 arbitrator, merely as r e f l e c t e d i n i t s d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h i s i s s u e , an e r r o r The of law. purposes judicata include the parties judgments, Martin, and p o l i c i e s promoted by the d o c t r i n e the i n t e r e s t s of both the public to a (b) resources, was particular reducing action in of private waste a n d (c) a v o i d i n g inconsistent 5 3 3 S o . 2 d 1 8 8 , 190 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . ofr e s a t l a r g e and (a) finality and judicial rulings. Similar of Hughes v . results are a c h i e v e d by t h e encouragement o f a r b i t r a t i o n i n c o n f o r m i t y t o the FAA. Smith, 1975, try See, e.g., Ex p a r t e M e r r i l l I n c . , 494 S o . 2 d 1, 4 § 6-6-1. them in agreement w i t h and public estoppel motion TEMCO & A l a . Code i t s claims would statutory Fenner see a l s o to s p l i t proceedings Herring-Malbis, final argument advanced because to arbitration issue independent ( A l a . 1986); Pierce, and t o violate i t s and case authority, policy. TEMCO's argument Permitting Lynch, amend by Herring-Malbis Herring-Malbis waited i t s original hearing of attorney asserts and a l l e g e d l y fees that the res i s barred to respond complaint failed until to i t s e l f at the a r b i t r a t i o n hearing. 19 by judicata judicial t o TEMCO's after the raise the According 2080296 t o TEMCO, t h o s e a l l e g e d o m i s s i o n s the "adoption" its complaint which TEMCO Because of a " p o s i t i o n " i n the c i r c u i t could Procedure after court TEMCO's relief under was submitted pursuant any d e a d l i n e to which hearing; assumption of a p o s i t i o n that the c i r c u i t on t h e i s s u e relief duty of attorney to raise before estoppel position i n a legal not attempted bring been TEMCO's first that proceeding, Carver to the assumption t o i m p e a c h , we r e j e c t of a this could properly Herring-Malbis claims f o r party v. F o s t e r , and H e r r i n g - M a l b i s ' s to amount t o t h e behalf. a occurred failure potential on requires Because the p a r t i e s ' court Further, a n y o f TEMCO's 1027 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , amount of necessity, fees. the a r b i t r a t o r judicial 1017, Civil have would Herring-Malbis's the of a response t o t h a t motion would have the a r b i t r a t i o n no before the Rules Herring-Malbis d i d not, had Payment A c t . s i x days respond sooner t h e r e f o r e rule t o amend procedure by t h e Prompt under amount t o motion was a p r o p e r seek hearing, required to f i l e that motion TEMCO's arbitration by H e r r i n g - M a l b i s Because assume a 928 S o . 2 d actions here d i d position that i t later argument. c o n t r a c t d o c u m e n t s r e q u i r e d TEMCO t o i t s Prompt Payment A c t c l a i m b e f o r e 20 the a r b i t r a t o r , we 2080296 hold t h a t TEMCO was b a r r e d under the d o c t r i n e of r e s j u d i c a t a from later claim asserting that we do n o t r e a c h the merits Herring-Malbis. Walker County Black of the other Warrior Sewer A u t h . , i n the c i r c u i t court. grounds Riverkeeper, 9 7 9 S o . 2 d 6 9 , 72 Thus, asserted I n c . v. by East ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007). For having the reasons explained h a d "an o p p o r t u n i t y arbitrator, was b a r r e d from a b o v e , we c o n c l u d e to l i t i g a t e " 517. We attorney the therefore fee, entry reverse a n d we r e m a n d o f a judgment the claim before the See Saad, the cause conforming court's 851 S o . 2 d award to the t r i a l o f an court f o r to the a r b i t r a t i o n award. INSTRUCTIONS. a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, without court. the t r i a l R E V E R S E D AND REMANDED WITH Bryan TEMCO, t h e r e a f t e r a s s e r t i n g i t s Prompt Payment A c t c l a i m i n t h e c i r c u i t at that P . J . , and Moore, writings. 21 J . , concur i n the result,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.