Ex parte Veolia Environmental SVC. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Christopher Herring v. Veolia Environmental SVC)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/08/2013 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 , 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, 2012-2013 2120270 Ex p a r t e V e o l i a Environmental SVC PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Christopher Herring v. V e o l i a Environmental SVC) (Etowah C i r c u i t THOMAS, J u d g e . Court, CV-12-243) 2120270 V e o l i a E n v i r o n m e n t a l SVC ("Veolia") i s the 1 a workers' compensation a c t i o n brought i n the Court by Christopher filed a motion venue u n d e r t h e § 6-3-21.1, Talladega to dismiss f o r u m non seeking Circuit provided Herring. to or i n the ("the after Herring reported In the Veolia change 1975, transferred to i t s motion, of Veolia f i r s t - r e p o r t - o f - i n j u r y form"), the completed h i s i n j u r y to h i s supervisor, and the a r e a s a f e t y manager. f i r s t - r e p o r t - o f - i n j u r y f o r m l i s t s V e o l i a ' s a d d r e s s as Speedway B o u l e v a r d , L i n c o l n , A l a b a m a . of-injury form a l s o that Herring's i n d i c a t e s , by form, injury Herring indicates his The v i r t u e of i n j u r y o c c u r r e d on V e o l i a ' s first-report-of-injury injured 2012, 29, a l t e r n a t i v e , to action support a f f i d a v i t o f O d i s Moore, V e o l i a ' s 1430 Circuit an " E m p l o y e r ' s F i r s t R e p o r t o f I n j u r y o r O c c u p a t i o n a l D i s e a s e " form The August Etowah c o n v e n i e n s s t a t u t e , A l a . Code have Court. On defendant i n knee that on or the typed first-reporta checked box, premises. On the description of the that he told his supervisor about A p r i l 18, 2011, "when he was The p e t i t i o n r e f e r s t o V e o l i a as V e o l i a E n v i r o n m e n t a l SVC. C e r t a i n o f t h e e x h i b i t s r e f e r t o V e o l i a as V e o l i a Environmental Services, Inc., V e o l i a Environmental Service, and V e o l i a ES S o l i d W a s t e , I n c . 1 2 2120270 climbing his ... on his truck r i g h t knee on the to get a cart. l i p of the p a c k i n g He a l l e g e s he blade." Moore's a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t V e o l i a ' s p r i n c i p a l of business that the i s located " a l l w i t n e s s e s who basis Veolia's of this in Etowah County. were i n v o l v e d He in this County location. because also avers made worked out Moore states action Herring Finally, of" f o r V e o l i a to defend the inconvenient County place accident l a w s u i t were e m p l o y e e s who Talladega t h a t i t w o u l d be i n Talladega hit worked Talladega C o u n t y l o c a t i o n and Talladega out of Veolia's County t h a n t o Etowah County." On October 10, "most w i t n e s s e s r e s i d e n e a r e r t o 2012, Herring filed o p p o s i t i o n to the motion to t r a n s f e r . Veolia's motion reconsideration on of November 19, 2012, November 20, 2012. court on petition jurisdiction, 31, denial the of trial trial 2012. court Veolia i t s motion court response to 10, 2012, court, J a n u a r y 7, and that because 2013. 3 in denied sought transfer on denied that motion on V e o l i a f i l e d t h i s p e t i t i o n i n our this on the and December to October The a court i t supreme transferred falls within the our 2120270 I n a d d i t i o n t o the m a t e r i a l s m e n t i o n e d above, V e o l i a appended Riddle, to i t s petition Herring's an affidavit d i r e c t supervisor and from an e x p e c t e d B a s e d on t h e f a c t t h a t R i d d l e ' s a f f i d a v i t was V e o l i a ' s November 19, the t r i a l court's fact the that 2012, Erskine motion seeking Watson witness. not mentioned i n reconsideration d e n i a l o f t h e m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r and affidavit has i s d a t e d November 20, a f t e r V e o l i a moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o r e c o n s i d e r of the the 2012, on day i t s d e n i a l of t h e m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r , we q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r R i d d l e ' s affidavit was affidavit s u b m i t t e d to the t r i a l c o u r t . I n any e v e n t , t h e s t a t e s o n l y t h a t R i d d l e w o u l d be t r a v e l t o Etowah County f o r the i n c o n v e n i e n c e d i f he had to trial. V e o l i a a r g u e s t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g the Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t t o t r a n s f e r the the Talladega established convenient Circuit both that Court because, Talladega forum f o r the County p a r t i e s and i t contends, would witnesses action be and a to i t more that the i n t e r e s t s of j u s t i c e compelled t r a n s f e r of the a c t i o n under § 6-3-21.1. Veolia relies heavily opinion i n Ex p a r t e Indiana M i l l s and M a n u f a c t u r i n g , I n c . , 10 So. 536 However, we 3d (Ala. 2008). 4 on as our supreme explained court's below, 2120270 c a n n o t a g r e e t h a t V e o l i a h a s met t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t i t has a clear legal right r e q u i r e m e n t f o r mandamus to the r e l i e f i t seeks, which is a relief. "The p r o p e r method f o r o b t a i n i n g r e v i e w o f a d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f o r a change o f venue i n a c i v i l a c t i o n i s t o p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. L a w l e r M o b i l e Homes, I n c . v. T a r v e r , 492 So. 2d 297, 302 (Ala. 1 9 8 6 ) . 'When we c o n s i d e r a mandamus p e t i t i o n r e l a t i n g t o a venue r u l i n g , o u r s c o p e o f r e v i e w i s to determine i f the t r i a l court abused i t s discretion, i . e . , whether i t exercised i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n an a r b i t r a r y a n d c a p r i c i o u s manner.' Ex p a r t e I n t e g o n C o r p . , 672 So. 2d 497, 499 ( A l a . 1995) . 'A w r i t o f mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy, r e q u i r i n g t h e s h o w i n g o f : (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2) an imperative d u t y on t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o perform, a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f another adequate r e m e d y ; a n d (4) t h e p r o p e r l y invoked jurisdiction of the court.' Ex p a r t e N i c h o l s , 757 So. 2d 374, 376 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . " Ex p a r t e Yocum, 963 So. 2d 600, 602 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . V e o l i a r e l i e s on t h e f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s s t a t u t e , § 6-321.1(a), which reads: "With respect to c i v i l actions filed i n an a p p r o p r i a t e venue, a n y c o u r t o f g e n e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a l l , f o r t h e convenience o f p a r t i e s and w i t n e s s e s , or i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e , t r a n s f e r a n y c i v i l a c t i o n o r any c l a i m i n any c i v i l a c t i o n t o any c o u r t of g e n e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n w h i c h t h e a c t i o n m i g h t have b e e n p r o p e r l y f i l e d a n d t h e c a s e s h a l l p r o c e e d as though originally filed therein. Provided, however, t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l n o t a p p l y t o cases s u b j e c t t o [ A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] , S e c t i o n 3 0 - 3 - 5 . " 5 2120270 Under t h e transfer either would f o r u m non an action (1) be conveniens that when a p a r t y the 757 So. aided 2d 374, 378 a trial s e e k i n g the convenience of the significantly Nichols, statute, by transfer parties transfer, ( A l a . 1999) court or chosen forum."), necessitate So. 2d or see Ex a transfer. 788, 790 (Ala. [prong] r e q u i r e [ s ] the the 1998) ("[T]he transfer little, with of a s t r o n g c o n n e c t i o n to the the Co., 727 of justice' action from a county action, to the county i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e . ' " Ex ( A l a . 2008) So. 2d at 789). p a r t e Kane, 989 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e N a t i o n a l "Our t h a t were b e f o r e t h e 511. transfer is Further, Sec. review i s l i m i t e d to trial court." "those facts 6 So. Ins. 509, Co., 727 only those be based 2d Ex p a r t e Kane, 989 'must has justified, convenience of the p a r t i e s or w i t n e s s e s or 511 at Ins. action."). i n i t i a l burden of showing t h a t the the justice" 'interest [an] c o n n e c t i o n to the plaintiff's of Sec. on transferee d e f e n d a n t m o v i n g f o r a t r a n s f e r u n d e r § 6-3-21.1 b a s e d on t h e on "interests Ex p a r t e N a t i o n a l with "'A i f any, that parte ("[T]he b u r d e n i s more c o n v e n i e n t t h a n t h e (2) proves witnesses the p a r t y moving f o r the t r a n s f e r to prove t h a t the forum i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y must based facts So. 2d upon 2120270 " e v i d e n t i a r y m a t e r i a l , " w h i c h does n o t i n c l u d e s t a t e m e n t s counsel i n motions, M i l l s & Mfg., Sec. Servs., The b r i e f s , a n d a r g u m e n t s . '" Ex p a r t e of Indiana I n c . , 10 So. 3d a t 541 n.3 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e ADT I n c . , 933 So. 2d 343, 345 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ) . f a c t s e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e meager e v i d e n t i a r y m a t e r i a l s presented to the t r i a l court a n d made e x h i b i t s to Veolia's mandamus p e t i t i o n e s t a b l i s h t h a t H e r r i n g ' s i n j u r y o c c u r r e d i n T a l l a d e g a County, t h a t V e o l i a ' s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s i s located i n Talladega County, that expected witnesses were employed by V e o l i a i n T a l l a d e g a County, t h a t V e o l i a would f i n d it inconvenient expected to t o defend t h e a c t i o n i n Etowah County, witness R i d d l e would f i n d i t inconvenient t o t r a v e l Etowah County for trial, and t h a t , according reside nearer Etowah County." T h i s c o u r t must c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e s e are s u f f i c i e n t County to facts statute. c o n s i d e r whether a t r a n s f e r o f t h e a c t i o n was r e q u i r e d under t h e c o n v e n i e n c e - o f - t h e - p a r t i e s prong. of than t o r e q u i r e a t r a n s f e r o f t h e a c t i o n under t h e f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s first to Talladega t o Moore, "most w i t n e s s e s We that the caselaw relevant A review to the convenience-of-the-parties p r o n g o f t h e f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s 7 statute i n d i c a t e s that the 2120270 meager s h o w i n g made b y V e o l i a conclusion that the t r i a l denying V e o l i a ' s motion. parte Nichols, witnesses consider. i s insufficient court abused to support a i t s discretion i n As o u r supreme c o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n Ex 757 So. 2d a t 379, t h e l o c a t i o n o f n o n p a r t y i s an a p p r o p r i a t e factor However, t h e N i c h o l s f o r the t r i a l court convenience of nonparty witnesses further held court to that the t h a t a r e e m p l o y e e s o f one o f t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e c a s e , a n d t h e r e f o r e whose p r e s e n c e may be obtained b y one o f t h e p a r t i e s , does favor of a t r a n s f e r . ("Further, I d . ; Ex p a r t e the inconvenience not weigh Yocum, 963 So. 2d a t 602 t o nonparty witnesses w e i g h h e a v i l y where, as h e r e , t h o s e w i t n e s s e s the by Arthur defendants."); R. M i l l e r Procedure see a l s o & Edward § 3 8 5 1 , a t 216-217 c a n be Federal (3d e d . 2007) secured Alan 15 C h a r l e s H. C o o p e r , does n o t a r e employees o f ... d e f e n d a n t s a n d t h e i r p r e s e n c e a t t r i a l those heavily i n Wright, P r a c t i c e and ( d i s c u s s i n g 28 U.S.C. § 1 4 0 4 ( a ) , w h i c h p e r m i t s t r a n s f e r between U n i t e d district convenience witnesses, courts "[f]or the of States parties and i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e , " and s t a t i n g t h a t " t h e convenience of witnesses who a r e e m p l o y e e s o f a p a r t y i s g i v e n l e s s w e i g h t by t h e c o u r t because t h a t p a r t y can o b t a i n 8 their 2120270 presence non at t r i a l " ) . conveniens forum, not I n any 'provides event, " [ t ] h e d o c t r i n e of for transfer t o a forum l i k e l y Dusen Alabama v. Barrack, c o u r t s have 376 a more convenient to prove e q u a l l y convenient i n c o n v e n i e n t , ' " Ex p a r t e N i c h o l s , 757 Van to forum U.S. typically So. 612, 2d a t 379 645-46 or (quoting (1964)), and seeking the required a party t r a n s f e r " t o prove t h a t the t r a n s f e r e e forum i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c o n v e n i e n t Nichols, 757 than the p l a i n t i f f ' s chosen forum." So. 2d e m p l o y e d by V e o l i a , Talladega travel County at 378. like or The fact that R i d d l e , m i g h t be might be does n o t by now to an a n a l y s i s of witnesses having to to e n t i t l e V e o l i a to a t r a n s f e r o f t h e a c t i o n u n d e r t h e f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s Turning parte located closer inconvenienced t o Etowah County, t h e n , the Ex the statute. interest-of-justice p r o n g , t h i s c o u r t must c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r V e o l i a has e s t a b l i s h e d that Talladega C o u n t y has a strong connection a c t i o n and t h a t E t o w a h C o u n t y has " l i t t l e , to the a c t i o n . 790. Veolia p r i n c i p a l place Ex p a r t e N a t i o n a l Sec. has presented of b u s i n e s s evidence to i f any," I n s . Co., 727 indicating i s i n Talladega Herring's connection So. 2d a t that i t s C o u n t y and that the a c c i d e n t g i v i n g r i s e to t h i s a c t i o n o c c u r r e d i n T a l l a d e g a 9 2120270 County. Thus, i t has a connection e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the to Talladega However, V e o l i a has t h a t of the Indiana and the not p r e s e n t e d evidence e q u i v a l e n t present forum case. In i n d i c a t i n g that county r e s p o n d e n t i n Ex Inc., the to parte c a s e on w h i c h i t t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o a w r i t o f mandamus i n Ex M a n u f a c t u r i n g , I n c . , 10 So. evidence the Manufacturing, r e l i e s i n arguing has County. e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by Mills action indeed and that parte 3d a t 541, only one "none o f Indiana and the defendant p r e s e n t e d defendant the Mills resided relevant in facts in the th[e] case a c t u a l l y i n v o l v e [ d ] " the forum county; through a f f i d a v i t s and t e s t i m o n y , t h e d e f e n d a n t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t occurred i n the transferee r e l a t i n g to the a c c i d e n t the t r a n s f e r e e county. National First (Ala. Family 1998), addition connection and to 725 to the Ex So. other a l l the evidence located in S i m i l a r l y , t h e p e t i t i o n e r s i n Ex 727 Financial Services, and that i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was S e c u r i t y I n s u r a n c e Co., I n s u r a n c e Co., in c o u n t y and parte 2d Inc., 2d a t 790, 718 Independent 955, 956 facts transferee So. So. and (Ala. 1998), demonstrating county, 10 2d Life that the had Ex parte parte 658, 662 Accident established, a significant plaintiffs in 2120270 each of those a c t i o n s instead resided d i d not reside i n the transferee established that Herring's with Talladega i n t h e forum c o u n t y and county. Veolia have a c t i o n has a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n n e c t i o n County, b u t i t has n o t e s t a b l i s h e d "nexus" o r " c o n n e c t i o n " may between [Herrings's] that "'the action and t h e o r i g i n a l f o r u m i s [ n o t ] s t r o n g enough t o w a r r a n t b u r d e n i n g t h e [Herrings's 47 So. chosen] forum w i t h t h e a c t i o n . ' " 3d 1221, 1225 ( A l a . 2010) Ex p a r t e Ex p a r t e (quoting Price, First T e n n e s s e e Bank N a t ' l A s s ' n , 994 So. 2d 906, 911 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ) . Because Veolia demonstrating that had the i n the t r i a l court convenience of the burden the witnesses or the i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e n e c e s s i t a t e d of the action, s e e Ex p a r t e Kane, 602, a and transfer 989 So. 2d a t 511, a n d b e c a u s e V e o l i a has t h e b u r d e n i n t h i s a clear legal right to r e l i e f , parties of court Ex p a r t e of demonstrating Yocum, 963 So. 2d a t b u t has n o t met t h o s e b u r d e n s , we c a n n o t a g r e e t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e w r i t o f mandamus i t s e e k s . petition Thus, we deny t h e f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus. PETITION DENIED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. 11

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.