Ex parte Jet Pep, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Jet Pep, Inc. v. Floyd Click)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/14/2012 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 , A l a b a m a 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110875 Ex p a r t e J e t Pep, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: J e t Pep, Inc. v. Floyd (Cullman Circuit Click) Court, CV-12-900116) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . On A p r i l complaint 13, 2012, J e t Pep, I n c . ("Jet Pep"), i n the Cullman Circuit Court ("the t r i a l filed a court") 2110875 seeking a determination benefits pursuant Act"), 25-5-1 Floyd § Click. workers' had to et an injury Jet was Pep materials vehicular a August 19, court Jet but Pep that Jet injury. a he Pep In i t s place of therefore, that f o r the dispute. The indicate d r i v e r and t h a t for stated 2011, and, ("the submitted i t s principal venue to t h i s Act pay i t s employee, had of C l i c k ' s claimed that to that on A u g u s t and was Click works 19, 2 0 1 1 , involved in he a accident. May action 15, 2012, that Jet Pep i n Etowah in Etowah appropriate he resided court In t h a t to t r a n s f e r motion, C l i c k i n Etowah County, that C o u n t y , and t h a t J e t Pep conducted business County. Therefore, i n Etowah County. C o u n t y was of b u s i n e s s , C l i c k moved t h e t r i a l to another "proper venue." alleged Cullman on an a p p r o p r i a t e truck to Click County as a t r u c k driving that i n Cullman submitted J e t Pep 1975, t o i t i n w h i c h he alleged located C u l l m a n C o u n t y was the alleged required Compensation A l a . Code the compensability business On Pep i t was Workers' seq., Jet suffered complaint, was the compensation claim disputed for as t o w h e t h e r he he w o r k e d f o r contended, venue C l i c k acknowledged that t h e l o c a t i o n o f J e t Pep's C u l l m a n C o u n t y was 2 also because principal an a p p r o p r i a t e was place venue f o r 2110875 the l i t i g a t i o n of the parties' dispute. However, Click argued t h a t t h e a c t i o n s h o u l d be t r a n s f e r r e d t o E t o w a h C o u n t y f o r t h e convenience of the parties. On M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 2 , w i t h o u t court granted Click's motion Court. Also Etowah C i r c u i t set aside Jet Pep a r g u e d , order that The the order was the t r i a l to the on M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 2 , J e t P e p m o v e d t o other the action. things, the day a f t e r that Click In that t h e May filed motion, 16, 2 0 1 2 , h i s motion and J e t Pep h a d n o t been a f f o r d e d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e s p o n d . Jet asking court denied Pep f i l e d this to direct 16, 2 0 1 2 , o r d e r Court. L.L.C., 12 Miller, Hamilton, (Ala. transferring See Ex p a r t e Snider ("'A Our supreme court court AIG Baker ( A l a . 2009) for a writ 1 has noted: 3 of mandamus to set aside i t s Orange & Odom, L L C , 978 petition county.'"). for a writ i t saction means f o r c h a l l e n g i n g an o r d e r another 1 the t r i a l S o . 3 d 1 2 0 4 , 1207 2007)) proper J e t P e p ' s May 1 6 , 2 0 1 2 , m o t i o n . a timely petition court Circuit to a hearing, to t r a n s f e r the action transferring among entered trial May conducting t o t h e Etowah Beach (quoting Ex Wharf, parte So. 2d 12, 13-14 o f mandamus transferring i s the an a c t i o n 2110875 "A w r i t o f mandamus w i l l n o t b e g r a n t e d u n l e s s there i s a clear showing of error by the t r i a l judge. E x p a r t e F i n a n c e A m e r i c a C o r p . , 507 S o . 2 d 458 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s ' r e v i e w o f a v e n u e d e t e r m i n a t i o n b y p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f mandamus i s t o determine whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s discretion and exercised i t s judgment i n an a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s manner.' Ex p a r t e J o i n e r , 486 S o . 2 d 4 0 2 , 404 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . Furthermore, mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y a n d d r a s t i c w r i t w h i c h s h a l l i s s u e o n l y when t h e p e t i t i o n e r s h o w s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s b o u n d b y l a w t o do w h a t i s r e q u e s t e d . E x p a r t e H e n d r i x H e a l t h C a r e C e n t e r , 628 S o . 2 d 725 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) ; E x p a r t e E v a n s , 545 S o . 2 d 81 (Ala. C i v . App. 1989); see a l s o Ex p a r t e Townsend, 589 S o . 2 d 7 1 1 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " 2d " I n E x p a r t e C h a p m a n N u r s i n g Home, I n c . , 903 S o . 8 1 3 , 815 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : "'"Once the transferor court has g r a n t e d t h e motion t o t r a n s f e r t h e case and the f i l e has been s e n t t o , and d o c k e t e d b y , the t r a n s f e r e e c o u r t , t h e t r a n s f e r o r c o u r t cannot then change i t s mind and v a c a t e o r set aside i t s transfer order or order the case returned." Ex p a r t e MedPartners, Inc., 820 S o . 2 d 8 1 5 , 821 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . The transferee court, likewise, cannot "retransfer" the case t o the county i n w h i c h i t was o r i g i n a l l y f i l e d . Ex p a r t e T i d w e l l I n d u s . , I n c . , 480 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 1 ( A l a . 1985). "The a g g r i e v e d p a r t y ' s s o l e r e m e d y i n such a case i s a p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of mandamus d i r e c t e d t o t h e t r a n s f e r o r c o u r t . " M e d P a r t n e r s , 820 S o . 2 d a t 8 2 1 . ' " Ex p a r t e A I G B a k e r 1207 n . 4 . Orange Beach Wharf, 4 L.L.C., 12 S o . 3 d a t 2110875 Ex parte 1032 a workers' same Ala. law Code workers' "a Homes ( A l a . C i v . App. In the Cavalier 1975. (Ala. parte This tort to App. i t would Adams, be 11 S o . So. 2d 1031, actions. has § by 2 5-5-81(a)(1), in a a c t i o n i s d e t e r m i n e d by e x a m i n i n g where action" for explained i s governed venue could Ex p a r t e 2008). venue a c t i o n , venue tort court by t h e employee. corporation, against compensation compensation Civ. I n c . , 655 1995). applicable hypothetical employer of Alabama, be governed brought against because workers' Jet Pep compensation b y § 6-3-7, A l a . C o d e 3d a t 247. That venue statute "(a) A l l c i v i l a c t i o n s a g a i n s t c o r p o r a t i o n s be b r o u g h t i n any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c o u n t i e s : "(1) In the county in which a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of the events or omissions g i v i n g r i s e to the claim occurred, or a s u b s t a n t i a l part of r e a l p r o p e r t y that i s the s u b j e c t of the a c t i o n i s s i t u a t e d ; or "(2) In the county corporation's principal office s t a t e ; or of in the this "(3) In the county i n which the p l a i n t i f f r e s i d e d , or i f the p l a i n t i f f i s a n e n t i t y o t h e r t h a n an i n d i v i d u a l , w h e r e the p l a i n t i f f had i t s p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e i n t h i s s t a t e , at the time of the a c c r u a l of the cause of a c t i o n , i f such c o r p o r a t i o n 5 the A d a m s , 11 S o . 3d 2 4 3 , Thus, any that is 246 a action 1975. Ex provides: may 2110875 does b u s i n e s s by a g e n t i n t h e c o u n t y o f p l a i n t i f f ' s r e s i d e n c e ; or the " ( 4 ) I f s u b d i v i s i o n s ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , o r (3) do n o t a p p l y , i n a n y c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e c o r p o r a t i o n was d o i n g b u s i n e s s b y a g e n t a t the time of the a c c r u a l of the cause of action." § 6-3-7(a), In Jet § this A l a . Code case, 1975. venue i s proper i n Cullman County, where Pep's p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s i s u n d i s p u t e d l y l o c a t e d . 6-3-7(a)(2). Venue i s also proper i n Etowah County, where C l i c k r e s i d e s and w o r k s and where t h e i n j u r y o c c u r r e d . 7(a)(1) and t h a n one filed, county, and that demonstrates be non 294 ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975. the p l a i n t i f f "election transferred conveniens. ( A l a . 2002); Ex Ex may choose where the a c t i o n i s stand" improper to another county unless the defendant doctrine r e l C.M., Paulk, the or t h a t the a c t i o n under p a r t e S t a t e ex parte 6-3- When v e n u e i s p r o p e r i n m o r e must t h a t v e n u e was § 722 So. 828 2d should of So. forum 2d 291, 171, 174 (Ala. that venue 1998). In proper this in plaintiff election case, Jet Cullman in this Pep County, action, to l i t i g a t e has demonstrated and, because deference i n the trial 6 Jet s h o u l d be court. Ex Pep is was the a f f o r d e d to i t s parte Bloodsaw, 2110875 648 So. rel C.M., obtain the 2d 553, supra, a proper theory of demonstrate County. turn Ex to 638 has parte of the non i t would to the 2d 772, 589 So. parte State ex In order to supra. a c t i o n to Etowah County be 648 a l s o Ex Paulk, i n the Bloodsaw, So. see conveniens, litigate Townsend, regard supreme c o u r t Ex transfer parte parte With and that Johnson, Ex ( A l a . 1994); forum convenient'"'" parte 555 Click So. 2d d o c t r i n e of required "'"'significantly other 774 was under 2d i . e . , Etowah at (quoting 555 715 f o r u m non (Ala. quoting Ex in 1991)). conveniens, explained: "The purposes of the forum non conveniens d o c t r i n e o f § 6 - 3 - 2 1 . 1 [ , A l a . Code 1975,] a r e t o p r e v e n t t h e w a s t e o f t i m e and e n e r g y and t o p r o t e c t witnesses, litigants, and the public against u n n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e and i n c o n v e n i e n c e . Ex p a r t e New E n g l a n d Mut. L i f e I n s . Co., 663 So. 2 d 952 (Ala. 1 995); Ex parte T o w n s e n d , 589 So. 2d 711 (Ala. 1991). A d e f e n d a n t s e e k i n g a t r a n s f e r b a s e d on § 6-3-21.1 has the burden of proving to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t t h a t the defendant's i n c o n v e n i e n c e and e x p e n s e i n d e f e n d i n g t h e a c t i o n i n t h e v e n u e s e l e c t e d b y t h e p l a i n t i f f a r e so great t h a t the p l a i n t i f f ' s r i g h t to choose the forum i s overcome. Ex p a r t e New E n g l a n d M u t . L i f e , 663 So. 2 d a t 9 5 6 ; Ex p a r t e T o w n s e n d , 589 So. 2 d a t 715. F o r a t r a n s f e r t o be j u s t i f i e d , t h e t r a n s f e r e e f o r u m m u s t be ' s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c o n v e n i e n t ' than the f o r u m c h o s e n by t h e p l a i n t i f f . Ex p a r t e T o w n s e n d , 589 So. 2 d a t 7 1 5 . See a l s o , E x p a r t e J o h n s o n , 638 So. 2 d 7 7 2 , 774 (Ala. 1994)." 7 more venue, ( A l a . 1994 ) , 711, to our 2110875 Ex parte In Integon Ex parte defendants' a Corp., Johnson, motion hearing. of burden that unverified expense choose was on Our the the filed forum." our Ex the concluded the that were inconvenience i n the venue Johnson, "[t]he defendants defendants' parte were selected 638 So. supreme c o u r t i s s u e d the w r i t a p p r o p r i a t e venues in Macon The trial the right to at on conveniens the t h e o r y of forum that case, the to t r a v e l determined inconvenience non witnesses mandamus. and testified granted the that they and that litigants suffer would a based motion. would the t o Macon C o u n t y t o l i t i g a t e 8 which to t r a n s f e r the a c t i o n i n Macon C o u n t y , traveling Elmore conducted to t e s t i f y the 774. action, court and by 2d of f o r Bloodsaw's County. an court, noting that by motion court had Ex p a r t e B l o o d s a w , s u p r a , b o t h M a c o n C o u n t y a n d filed willing conducting in defendants, action the s u b m i t t e d no e v i d e n c e h e a r i n g on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s In without defendants presented 1995). court granted action supreme t h a t the (Ala. a r e s o g r e a t as t o o v e r c o m e t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s Accordingly, County was to prove the In the 500 trial t o t r a n s f e r and had i n defending plaintiff 497, the the case, allegations insufficient 2d supra, that motion. of p r o o f So. to t r a n s f e r In u n v e r i f i e d motion support 672 be supreme no more than they 2110875 would The to t r a v e l supreme to nearby Elmore court concluded County that f o r t h e same the defendant p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t evidence t h a t "Bloodsaw's Macon County as the inconvenience of Bloodsaw, So. In 648 this forum trying 2d case, w h i c h he m e n t i o n e d f o r her the at purpose. had r i g h t to county." by Ex witnesses i n that part of h i s motion t h e d o c t r i n e o f f o r u m non County." to the to the injury C l i c k made no parties or to parte to t r a n s f e r conveniens, m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t i n Etowah County, as the 556. s t a t e d o n l y t h a t h i s i n j u r y o c c u r r e d i n Etowah County, received choose i s outweighed i n that case case not itself allegations the are and w i t n e s s e s of Click that he that "[a]ny in Etowah located regarding in the convenience litigating in either venue. Further, without submitted transfer transfer. issue the conducting to was the That sets court granted the motion a hearing. trial court Click's whether affidavit trial in affidavit affidavit venue was forth no Thus, support facts i n Etowah evidence pertaining 9 only of i n support addressed proper the to the of evidence motion to h i s motion to relevant County. to transfer the to the Click's issue of 2110875 the convenience or expense o f l i t i g a t i n g either of the p a r t i e s or f o r the witnesses. We conclude demonstrating that that was so i n c o n v e n i e n t an appropriate supra; trial and, writ 16, Ex p a r t e Click litigating did therefore, present f o r i t saction. Johnson, supra. that Ex parte o f mandamus a n d o r d e r t o choose Bloodsaw, the a c t i o n t o Elmore We grant the t r i a l court legal the p e t i t i o n fora to vacate Court. Pittman, Bryan, ISSUED. and Moore, Thomas, J . , r e c u s e s JJ., herself. 10 County a clear 2012, order t r a n s f e r r i n g t h i s a c t i o n t o t h e Etowah P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT court A c c o r d i n g l y , we h o l d t h a t t h e J e t Pep h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d i t seeks. evidence i n the t r i a l as t o s u p e r s e d e J e t Pep's r i g h t venue to the r e l i e f not the action court erred i n transferring right i n Cullman County f o r concur. i t s May Circuit

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.