Ex parte H&M Industrial Services, Inc., and ThyssenKrupp Steel USA, LLC. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Adrian Sullivan v. H&M Industrial Services, Inc., et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/16/2012 Notice: This 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 , Alabama 36104-3741 ((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, 2012-2013 2110945 Ex p a r t e H&M I n d u s t r i a l S e r v i c e s , I n c . , and ThyssenKrupp S t e e l USA, LLC PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Adrian S u l l i v a n v. H&M I n d u s t r i a l S e r v i c e s , Inc., e t a l . ) (Washington C i r c u i t Court, CV-12-900011) MOORE, J u d g e . H&M I n d u s t r i a l Steel S e r v i c e s , I n c . ("H&M"), a n d T h y s s e n K r u p p USA, L L C ( " T h y s s e n K r u p p " ) , (hereinafter referred to c o l l e c t i v e l y as "the p e t i t i o n e r s " ) p e t i t i o n this court f o r a 2110945 writ o f mandamus t o t h e W a s h i n g t o n C i r c u i t C o u r t ("the t r i a l court") d i r e c t i n g i t t o grant t h e i r motion t o dismiss o r , i n the alternative, to transfer C o u r t on t h e b a s i s and issue the case t o the M o b i l e o f improper venue. Circuit We g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n the w r i t . Procedural History On M a r c h 15, 2012, A d r i a n S u l l i v a n f i l e d a complaint i n the t r i a l c o u r t a g a i n s t the p e t i t i o n e r s ; Harvey C a s e y ; Stevens Painton Corporation; defendants. Sullivan from H&M a n d damages from the remaining and several fictitiously named sought w o r k e r s ' compensation for alleged defendants. negligence Sullivan benefits and wantonness averred that the a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d on June 22, 2010. On A p r i l 20, 2012, t h e p e t i t i o n e r s dismiss o r , i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , on improper venue. happened in ThyssenKrupp did to transfer The p e t i t i o n e r s Mobile County business and in p e t i t i o n e r s submitted a printout S t a t e ' s Web site limited-liability indicating filed that the action argued that that a motion based the accident neither Washington to H&M County. nor The from t h e Alabama S e c r e t a r y o f T h y s s e n K r u p p was a foreign company whose p r i n c i p a l a d d r e s s was a t One 2 2110945 ThyssenKrupp business affidavit Drive, was the Calvert, sale of he was Lines." He ha[s] steel. and They whose also a project further Casey manager testified testified a t the "Hot nature attached of Harvey Casey, a t e c h n i c a l s p e c i a l i s t manager f o r T h y s s e n K r u p p . that Alabama, of the and p r o j e c t in his Dip affidavit Galvanizing t h a t he i s " f a m i l i a r w i t h and k n o w l e d g e o f where t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f b o t h M o b i l e C o u n t y and W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t y f a l l w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e [ T h y s s e n K r u p p ] site ... b a s e d on t h e e x t e n s i v e e x p e r i e n c e [ h e h a s ] on site, and [ h i s ] k n o w l e d g e of the boundaries of Mobile W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t y i s b a s e d upon [ h i s ] u s e and k n o w l e d g e the of experience, i t s site County." the maps, and [ h i s ] [ThyssenKrupp] on depicts W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t y b o u n d a r i e s upon i t as compared "review He improvements and falls further within stated personal of the [ThyssenKrupp] s i t e , has e r e c t e d no s t r u c t u r e o r o t h e r that to the He s t a t e d t h a t , b a s e d on [ h i s ] professional knowledge and extensive of the Master Overlay Plans which l a y o u t of the [ThyssenKrupp] s i t e . " his f r e q u e n t and this the that borders of ThyssenKrupp improvement Washington "requires to i t s property to perform a l l of i t s functions r e l a t e d t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n and s a l e o f c a r b o n s t e e l 3 products, 2110945 and no s u c h i m p r o v e m e n t h a s b e e n p l a n n e d f o r o r e r e c t e d Washington County." within He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t H&M's w o r k was p e r f o r m e d e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e "Hot D i p G a l v a n i z i n g L i n e s , " a n d he opined that, based on h i s " r e v i e w p r o f e s s i o n a l and p e r s o n a l experience, o f t h e maps, [his] and [ h i s ] knowledge o f t h e [ T h y s s e n K r u p p ] s i t e , a l l w o r k p e r f o r m e d b y H&M was l o c a t e d w e l l - w i t h i n the M o b i l e County boundary The petitioners also submitted D e n n i s , a p r o j e c t manager f o r H&M. affidavit line." the a f f i d a v i t Dennis t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t the time of S u l l i v a n ' s a c c i d e n t , foreign corporation Galvanizing o f John in his H&M was a t h a t was p e r f o r m i n g w o r k on t h e "Hot D i p L i n e s " b u t a t no o t h e r l o c a t i o n i n Alabama. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t H&M does n o t r e g u l a r l y do b u s i n e s s i n any o t h e r l o c a t i o n i n Alabama. Attached t o Dennis's a f f i d a v i t was t h e accident report regarding S u l l i v a n ' s accident, which i n d i c a t e d that Sullivan's accident Galvanizing Lines." had occurred on the "Hot D i p Dennis t e s t i f i e d t h a t , although a c e r t a i n r e p o r t made b y H&M l i s t s W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t y as t h e l o c a t i o n o f the accident, he " h a [ d ] b e e n made t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e H o t Dip G a l v a n i z i n g Lines a r e l o c a t e d i n M o b i l e County, Alabama, 4 2110945 by employees satellite o f ThyssenKrupp Painton controller affidavit that Corporation o r , i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , on i m p r o p e r v e n u e . a have imagery o f the ThyssenKrupp Stevens dismiss who I t attached a l l t h e work that site." also filed a motion to t o t r a n s f e r the a c t i o n based an a f f i d a v i t o f Tony D e L u c a , f o r Stevens Painton. that Stevens Painton a c c e s s t o maps a n d DeLuca i s a foreign testified in his corporation and i t d i d f o r T h y s s e n K r u p p was done i n M o b i l e County. On May 2 1 , 2012, S u l l i v a n moved t o s t r i k e t h e a f f i d a v i t s of Casey and D e n n i s . inadmissible He a r g u e d t h a t to the extent that Casey's affidavit i t contained was information r e g a r d i n g i n w h i c h c o u n t y i m p r o v e m e n t s were l o c a t e d b e c a u s e he did not attach Dennis's stated t h e maps upon w h i c h he r e l i e d ; he a r g u e d t h a t affidavit that was inadmissible to the extent the "Hot D i p G a l v a n i z i n g County because, S u l l i v a n said, that L i n e s " were that i t i n Mobile s t a t e m e n t was b a s e d on inadmissible hearsay. On May 22, 2012, S u l l i v a n motion arguing Mobile County responded t o the p e t i t i o n e r s ' t h a t ThyssenKrupp's and Washington s i t e was l o c a t e d County. 5 Sullivan i n both attached a 2110945 printout o f a Web "ThyssenKrupp site Steel page. The and S t a i n l e s s title USA," 1 o f t h e page i s and i t s t a t e s that t h a t company's s i t e w o u l d be l o c a t e d i n n o r t h e r n M o b i l e C o u n t y and s o u t h e r n W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t y . Sullivan also maps the s i t e and a deed Steel i n d i c a t i n g that and S t a i n l e s s USA, L L C , " was County and Washington County. of the Washington of located attached tax "ThyssenKrupp i n both Mobile He a l s o a t t a c h e d a r e s o l u t i o n County Commission i n d i c a t i n g that certain l a n d i n W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t y h a d b e e n d e s i g n a t e d as an i n d u s t r i a l park by "ThyssenKrupp addition, and S t a i n l e s s Sullivan attached a c e r t i f i c a t e "ThyssenKrupp Stainless Steel Steel USA, USA, L L C . " o f merger USA, L L C , " a n d " T h y s s e n K r u p p LLC," d a t e d September 26, 2 0 1 1 . In between S t e e l and He also a t t a c h e d p r o o f o f r e g i s t r a t i o n o f s e v e r a l v e h i c l e s i n t h e name of " T h y s s e n K r u p p S t a i n l e s s USA, L L C , " i n W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t y . After a hearing, J u n e 15, 2012, the t r i a l court entered an o r d e r , 2 on stating: " T h y s s e n K r u p p S t e e l a n d S t a i n l e s s USA, L L C , " h a d merged w i t h " T h y s s e n K r u p p S t e e l USA, L L C , " b y t h e t i m e t h e c o m p l a i n t i n t h i s c a s e was f i l e d . 1 T h e m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t do n o t i n d i c a t e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , i f any, between ThyssenKrupp and "ThyssenKrupp S t a i n l e s s USA, L L C . " 2 6 2110945 " B a s e d on t h e s u b m i s s i o n s a n d t h e a r g u m e n t s o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e C o u r t GRANTS [ S u l l i v a n ' s ] M o t i o n t o S t r i k e . The p o r t i o n s o f t h e C a s e y a f f i d a v i t r e l y i n g on d o c u m e n t s n o t a t t a c h e d , a n d t h e p o r t i o n s o f t h e D e n n i s a f f i d a v i t r e l y i n g on h e a r s a y information, both i d e n t i f i e d i n [ S u l l i v a n ' s ] Motion, a r e hereby stricken. "The C o u r t a l s o f i n d s t h a t D e f e n d a n t s have n o t met t h e i r b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t v e n u e i s n o t p r o p e r i n W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t y . T h i s w o u l d be t r u e e v e n if the Court c o n s i d e r e d the Dennis and Casey affidavits i n their entirety. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss or Transfer are DENIED." (Capitalization i n original.) Standard o f Review "'A p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus i s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e means b y w h i c h t o c h a l l e n g e a t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r r e g a r d i n g a change o f venue. The writ o f mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y ; i t w i l l n o t be i s s u e d u n l e s s t h e p e t i t i o n e r shows " ' " ( 1 ) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the order s o u g h t ; ( 2 ) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e respondent t o perform, accompanied by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e remedy; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . " ' " Ex p a r t e I n v e r n e s s C o n s t r . Co., 775 So. 2d 153, 156 ( A l a . 2000) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e G a t e s , 675 So. 2d 3 7 1 , 374 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ) ; Ex p a r t e P f i z e r , I n c . , 746 So. 2d 960, 962 ( A l a . 1999) "Ex p a r t e C h i l d r e n ' s Hosp. o f A l a b a m a , 931 So. 2d 1, 5-6 ( A l a . 2005) . 7 2110945 "Applying the general rules to a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus c h a l l e n g i n g a r u l i n g r e l a t e d t o venue, t h i s C o u r t has h e l d : 'The b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g i m p r o p e r venue i s on t h e p a r t y r a i s i n g t h e i s s u e a n d on r e v i e w o f an o r d e r t r a n s f e r r i n g o r r e f u s i n g t o t r a n s f e r , a w r i t o f mandamus w i l l n o t be g r a n t e d u n l e s s there i s a c l e a r showing o f e r r o r on t h e p a r t o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e . ' Ex p a r t e F i n a n c e A m e r i c a C o r p . , 507 So. 2d 458, 460 ( A l a . 1987) . 'Our r e v i e w i s l i m i t e d t o o n l y t h o s e f a c t s t h a t were b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' Ex p a r t e Kane, 989 So. 2d 509, 511 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) . " Ex p a r t e Lugo de V e g a , 65 So. 3d 886, 891 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) . Discussion The petitioners initially improperly argue that the t r i a l court s t r u c k Casey's a f f i d a v i t because, they a s s e r t , h i s testimony t h a t t h e "Hot D i p G a l v a n i z i n g L i n e s " a n d a l l s t e e l - producing business personal were l o c a t e d i n M o b i l e C o u n t y was b a s e d on knowledge. I n S t e p h e n s v. F i r s t C o m m e r c i a l Bank, 45 So. 3d 735, 738¬ 39 ( A l a . 2010) (plurality opinion), our supreme reasoned: " S t e p h e n s ... a r g u e s t h a t ' i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t none o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t was w i t h i n t h e " p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e " o f Mr. Brown.' S t e p h e n s ' s b r i e f , p. 13. I n p r e v i o u s c a s e s , we have h e l d testimony i n a d m i s s i b l e under t h e b e s t - e v i d e n c e r u l e o r t h e h e a r s a y p r o h i b i t i o n , b u t o n l y when i t was r e a d i l y e v i d e n t t h a t t h e w i t n e s s h a d no p e r s o n a l 8 court 2110945 k n o w l e d g e o f t h e f a c t s he o r she t e s t i f i e d t o . See, e.g., Ex p a r t e W a l k e r , 623 So. 2d [281,] 284 [ ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ] ( a p p l y i n g b e s t - e v i d e n c e r u l e where i t was c l e a r from t h e r e c o r d t h a t a bookkeeper's t e s t i m o n y was b a s e d e x c l u s i v e l y on b o o k s a n d r e c o r d s o f t h e b u s i n e s s a n d n o t p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e ) ; Ex p a r t e Head, 572 So. 2d 1276, 1281 ( A l a . 1990) ( h o l d i n g t h a t 'testimony regarding t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t h e defendants, purportedly made "from personal knowledge" g a i n e d from t h e records o f t h e p r o b a t e c o u r t , ' was i n a d m i s s i b l e where 'no c o p i e s o f t h e p r o b a t e records from which [the a f f i a n t ] g a i n e d h e r "personal knowledge" were provided w i t h [the] a f f i d a v i t ' ) ; M c M i l l i a n v. W a l l i s , 567 So. 2d 1199, 1205 ( A l a . 1990) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a d o c t o r ' s a f f i d a v i t and d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y d e s c r i b i n g t h e c o n t e n t s o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s h o s p i t a l r e c o r d s were i n a d m i s s i b l e h e a r s a y where n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e d t h a t the doctor h a d any p e r s o n a l knowledge o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s h i s t o r y ) ; a n d Home Bank o f G u n t e r s v i l l e v. P e r p e t u a l F e d . Sav. & Loan A s s ' n , 547 So. 2d 840, 841-42 ( A l a . 1989) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a f f i d a v i t f i l e d b y d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y was i n a d m i s s i b l e h e a r s a y where ' [ i ] t appears from the face o f the a f f i d a v i t t h a t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e s e m a t t e r s must have come t o h i m f r o m h i s c l i e n t o r f r o m o t h e r s ' ) . "However, we c a n n o t a g r e e t h a t , i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t none o f t h e a s s e r t i o n s made by Brown was b a s e d on p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e . U n l i k e t h e d o c t o r - a f f i a n t i n M c M i l l i a n , who e x p r e s s l y stated t h a t he f o r m e d h i s e x p e r t o p i n i o n b a s e d upon 'my r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d s o f t h e h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n , ' 567 So. 2d a t 1204, a n d t h e a f f i a n t i n Ex p a r t e Head, who s t a t e d t h a t he h a d '"examined t h e r e c o r d s o f t h e Probate C o u r t o f J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama, f o r t h e purpose of determining the l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of the parties i n [this] c a s e as t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s d i s c l o s e d i n t h o s e r e c o r d s , " ' 572 So. 2d a t 1277, Brown u n e q u i v o c a l l y s t a t e s i n h i s a f f i d a v i t t h a t ' I have p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e m a t t e r s s e t f o r t h h e r e i n . ' A l t h o u g h Stephens d i s p u t e s t h a t statement, 9 2110945 he s u b m i t t e d no e v i d e n c e t h a t w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t i s f a l s e o r t h a t i t was made i n b a d f a i t h . I n l i g h t o f t h e f a c t t h a t Brown's a f f i d a v i t was f i l e d w i t h FCB's m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on November 7, 2008, a n d t h a t t h e t r i a l court e x p r e s s l y d e l a y e d r u l i n g on t h a t summary-judgment m o t i o n u n t i l J a n u a r y 6, 2009, i n o r d e r t o g i v e Stephens time t o conduct d i s c o v e r y , Stephens had ample t i m e i n w h i c h t o q u e s t i o n Brown as t o t h e source of h i s personal knowledge, either by i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s o r b y d e p o s i t i o n . He apparently e l e c t e d n o t t o do s o . I n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Brown's a f f i d a v i t was n o t b a s e d upon h i s p e r s o n a l knowledge, t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y considered the a f f i d a v i t as e v i d e n c e , because neither the best-evidence rule nor the rule p r o h i b i t i n g hearsay i s a p p l i c a b l e here. 2 " Had Stephens o b t a i n e d and s u b m i t t e d e v i d e n c e i n r e s p o n s e t o FCB's summary-judgment m o t i o n c a l l i n g i n t o q u e s t i o n t h e s o u r c e o f Brown's k n o w l e d g e , t h a t r e s p o n s e m i g h t have 'made [FCB's b o o k s a n d r e c o r d s ] c r u c i a l t o t h e d e c i s i o n i n t h e c a s e . ' See Rose Manor H e a l t h C a r e [ , I n c . v. B a r n h a r d t M f g . C o . ] , 608 So. 2d [358,] 360-61 [ ( A l a . 1992)] ('[The a p p e l l e e ' s a f f i a n t ] s t a t e d t h a t he made t h e s t a t e m e n t s o f h i s own p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e a n d b a s e d on h i s f a m i l i a r i t y with [the appellee's] books and records T h e r e f o r e , t h e f a i l u r e t o a t t a c h t h e i n v o i c e s was not fatal to [the appellee's] summary-judgment m o t i o n , a t l e a s t i n t h e absence o f any r e s p o n s e by Rose Manor t h a t made t h e i n v o i c e s t h e m s e l v e s c r u c i a l to the d e c i s i o n i n the case.')." 2 In that the present he i s " f a m i l i a r case, with boundaries of both Mobile with respect Casey testified and ha[s] i n his affidavit knowledge o f where t h e County and Washington County t o t h e [ThyssenKrupp] 10 site ... b a s e d fall on t h e 2110945 extensive experience [he has] on this site, and [ h i s ] knowledge o f t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f M o b i l e and Washington County i s b a s e d upon [his] frequent the Master O v e r l a y Plans boundaries upon [ThyssenKrupp] based site." on h i s " r e v i e w Washington that (Emphasis has layout He that no falls of stated and t h a t and structure appears from personal within He f u r t h e r Casey used the experience, of testified and [ h i s ] a l l work p e r f o r m e d b y d i d not simply master Instead, line." affidavit, r e g u r g i t a t e the he t e s t i f i e d overlay p r o f e s s i o n a l and p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e r e g a r d i n g 11 other o f t h e maps, B a s e d on t h e l a n g u a g e o f C a s e y ' s clear that frequently and the borders h i s "review site, c o n t e n t s o f maps o r o v e r l a y p l a n s . he that, or H&M was l o c a t e d w e l l - w i t h i n t h e M o b i l e C o u n t y b o u n d a r y it the e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e "Hot D i p o f t h e [ThyssenKrupp] (Emphasis added.) of County [his]professional (Emphasis added.) professional knowledge the added.) erected H&M's work was p e r f o r m e d Lines" the Washington to o f t h e maps, i t s site County." Galvanizing [his] on compared use and knowledge and [ h i s ] k n o w l e d g e o f t h e [ T h y s s e n K r u p p ] [ThyssenKrupp] improvement which d e p i c t s i t as personal experience, site, and e x t e n s i v e plans and that had the l o c a t i o n of 2110945 t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s on t h e T h y s s e n K r u p p s i t e . that Casey's that, to any affidavit was based on Thus, we personal knowledge t h e r e f o r e , a t t a c h i n g the master o v e r l a y p l a n s h i s a f f i d a v i t was evidence knowledge. not r e q u i r e d . calling into S t e p h e n s , 45 So. C a r e , I n c . v. B a r n h a r d t Mfg. 1992). A c c o r d i n g l y , we 3d a t 739 608 the source n.2; So. Rose Manor 2d 350, motion maps present Casey's Health 360-61 ( A l a . affidavit. The p e t i t i o n e r s n e x t a r g u e t h a t t h e t r i a l their of and conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g to c o n s i d e r p o r t i o n s of Casey's denying and S u l l i v a n f a i l e d to question Co., conclude to dismiss t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n b a s e d on or, i n the court erred i n alternative, improper venue. S e c t i o n 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, provides: "All civil actions against corporations 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 : may "(1) In the county in which a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of the e v e n t s or o m i s s i o n s g i v i n g r i s e to the c l a i m o c c u r r e d , or a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of r e a l p r o p e r t y t h a t 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 an 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 , where 12 be to 2110945 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 , a t the time of the a c c r u a l of the cause o f a c t i o n , i f such c o r p o r a t i o n does b u s i n e s s b y a g e n t i n t h e c o u n t y o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s residence; or "(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 o f t h e a c c r u a l o f t h e cause o f action." The case p e t i t i o n e r s argue t h a t they p r e s e n t e d that Sullivan's accident a prima f a c i e d i d not occur i n Washington C o u n t y a n d t h a t n e i t h e r H&M n o r T h y s s e n K r u p p d i d b u s i n e s s i n Washington County; they f u r t h e r argue t h a t S u l l i v a n f a i l e d t o rebut t h e i r evidence. I n h i s a f f i d a v i t , Casey t e s t i f i e d t h e "Hot D i p G a l v a n i z i n g L i n e s , " where t h e a c c i d e n t are i n Mobile County. to the contrary. of Work Injury produced u n t i l We note that or I l l n e s s " document a "First t o h i s answer document i n d i c a t e s t h a t a f t e r the t r i a l incorrectly listed 3 that Dennis occurred, S u l l i v a n f a i l e d t o produce any e v i d e n c e Although S u l l i v a n attached mandamus p e t i t i o n , that stated court to the i t was n o t had entered i n his affidavit Report i t s order. that "[H&M] t h e l o c a t i o n o f Columns 13 a n d 14 o f L i n e o f t h e Hot D i p G a l v a n i z i n g Lines i n Washington A l a b a m a , on one o r more w r i t t e n r e p o r t s i t p r o v i d e d 13 County, concerning 2110945 ... S u l l i v a n ' s a c c i d e n t . " trial c o u r t , however. "Our r e v i e w f a c t s t h a t were b e f o r e So. Those r e p o r t s were n o t shown t o t h e the t r i a l 2d 509, 511 ( A l a . 2008) . trial i s limited court." to only those Ex p a r t e Kane, 989 B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s met t h e i r b u r d e n of p r o v i n g The that the accident petitioners also T h y s s e n K r u p p do b u s i n e s s does b u s i n e s s occurred argue i n Mobile that County. neither i n Washington County. H&M nor "A c o r p o r a t i o n i n a c o u n t y f o r p u r p o s e s o f § 6-3-7[, A l a . Code 1975,] i f i t p e r f o r m s w i t h some r e g u l a r i t y i n t h a t c o u n t y some of the business created." functions Ex p a r t e In E l l i o t t , Elliott, f o r which the corporation was 80 So. 3d 908, 912 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) . o u r supreme c o u r t reasoned: "[B]ecause the t i m b e r - s u p p l y agreements [ a t i s s u e ] gave I P a n d Chapman t h e e x c l u s i v e r i g h t s t o t i m b e r on l a n d i n Conecuh C o u n t y , b e c a u s e t h e a g r e e m e n t s were r e c o r d e d i n t h e Conecuh P r o b a t e C o u r t , a n d b e c a u s e t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t s was t o f u l f i l l I P ' s a n d Chapman's p r i n c i p a l c o r p o r a t e f u n c t i o n o f m a n u f a c t u r i n g p l y w o o d p r o d u c t s , I P a n d Chapman were d o i n g b u s i n e s s i n Conecuh C o u n t y . " 80 So. 3d testified property production a t 914. that In the present ThyssenKrupp to perform and s a l e case, "requires improvements a l l of i t s functions of carbon 14 steel however, related products, Casey to i t s to the a n d no such 2110945 improvement has been p l a n n e d f o r o r e r e c t e d w i t h i n Washington County." Further, t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t H&M's work was done e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e "Hot D i p G a l v a n i z i n g L i n e s , " w h i c h a r e located i n Mobile County. In response t o t h a t e v i d e n c e , S u l l i v a n p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e indicating been that designated Washington evidence a portion as County. an o f ThyssenKrupp's Industrial Park, site, was located S u l l i v a n d i d n o t , however, i n d i c a t i n g that any i m p r o v e m e n t s the Washington County p r o p e r t y . which had in s u b m i t any had been b u i l t on S u l l i v a n submitted proof of r e g i s t r a t i o n o f s e v e r a l v e h i c l e s i n t h e name o f "ThyssenKrupp S t a i n l e s s USA, L L C , " i n W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t y ; however, he d i d n o t submit any ThyssenKrupp hearing, evidence indicating and "ThyssenKrupp any relationship S t a i n l e s s USA, L L C . " between At the c o u n s e l f o r ThyssenKrupp a d m i t t e d t h a t i t had twice u s e d b a r g e s f r o m a company l o c a t e d c o l l e c t some o f i t s s t e e l c o i l s i n Washington County " t o to ship out i n response to a p u r c h a s e o r d e r " b u t t h a t t h e b a r g e s h a d come t o M o b i l e C o u n t y to load business the c o i l s . "To e s t a b l i s h t h a t a corporation does i n a p a r t i c u l a r c o u n t y f o r p u r p o s e s o f venue, past 15 2110945 isolated transactions at inconclusive." Elliott, 80 So. 3d 912. B a s e d on met are the foregoing, t h e i r burden of p r o v i n g we conclude t h a t the p e t i t i o n e r s H&M and b u s i n e s s i n W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t y and rebut that evidence. We ThyssenKrupp d i d not t h a t S u l l i v a n has For issue a the nor ThyssenKrupp had i n Washington County. foregoing writ to a l s o agree w i t h the p e t i t i o n e r s t h a t t h e same e v i d e n c e p r o v e s t h a t n e i t h e r H&M a principal office failed do reasons, directing to the dismiss we grant trial or, the court petitioners' motion in t r a n s f e r the case to the M o b i l e C i r c u i t the petition to and grant the alternative, to Court. PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 16 Bryan, and Thomas, JJ.,

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.