Ex parte West Fraser, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Michael Hunt v. West Fraser, Inc.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/10/2013 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 2120432 Ex p a r t e West F r a s e r , Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : M i c h a e l Hunt v. West F r a s e r , I n c . ) (Chambers C i r c u i t Court, CV-12-900102) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . 2120432 West Fraser, Inc., petitions this court f o r a w r i t of mandamus o r d e r i n g t h e Chambers C i r c u i t C o u r t t o t r a n s f e r t h i s civil a c t i o n t o the Lee C i r c u i t In support of Court. i t s petition, documents i n d i c a t i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g . "gang saw operator" i n West O p e l i k a i s i n Lee County. the Opelika saw m i l l , West Fraser submitted M i c h a e l Hunt w o r k e d as a Fraser's Opelika saw mill. On A p r i l 4, 2 0 1 1 , w h i l e w o r k i n g i n Hunt s u f f e r e d a severe injury to h i s r i g h t arm. A f t e r r e c e i v i n g i n i t i a l f i r s t a i d a t t h e saw m i l l , Hunt was t a k e n for to East emergency m e d i c a l a t West F r a s e r Alabama M e d i c a l treatment. Hunt d i d n o t r e t u r n t o w o r k f o r more t h a n a y e a r June 27, 2012, West F r a s e r t e r m i n a t e d notice of termination Center i n Lee County was m a i l e d after the accident. H u n t ' s employment. On The f r o m L e e C o u n t y , a n d Hunt r e c e i v e d t h e n o t i c e a t h i s home i n Chambers C o u n t y . On M a r c h 1, 2012, b e f o r e Hunt f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t h i s employment was i n t h e Chambers C i r c u i t C o u r t w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s f r o m West F r a s e r . moved for a County. Hunt change terminated, o f venue from d i d n o t oppose Chambers the motion, 2 West seeking Fraser County t o Lee a n d t h e Chambers 2120432 C i r c u i t Court t r a n s f e r r e d t h e w o r k e r s ' compensation the Lee C i r c u i t On A u g u s t Court. 3, 2012, s l i g h t l y more t h a n a month employment h a d been t e r m i n a t e d , Hunt f i l e d Chambers Circuit Court retaliatory discharge compensation claim. of action to against in West connection after h i s a c i v i l action i n Fraser with his alleging workers' West F r a s e r moved f o r a change o f venue the r e t a l i a t o r y - d i s c h a r g e a c t i o n t o the Lee C i r c u i t Court. Hunt o p p o s e d t h e m o t i o n . Circuit Court On J a n u a r y 17, 2 0 1 3 , t h e Chambers d e n i e d West F r a s e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r a change o f v e n u e w i t h o u t e x p l a n a t i o n . On F e b r u a r y 27, 2013, West F r a s e r filed a petition f o r w r i t o f mandamus w i t h t h i s court. "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 ( A l a . 1986). '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 t o determine i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t 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 duty 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 j u r i s d i c t i o n 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 ) . " 3 2120432 Ex p a r t e Yocum, 963 So. 2d 600, 602 ( A l a . 2007). As l e g a l a u t h o r i t y f o r i t s a s s e r t i o n t h a t venue s h o u l d be c h a n g e d f r o m Chambers C o u n t y t o Lee C o u n t y , West F r a s e r relied on § 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h g o v e r n s venue o f a c t i o n s against forum corporations, non conveniens and § 6-3-21.1, statute. A l a . Code In opposing 1975, t h e the motion to t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n t o Lee C o u n t y , Hunt a r g u e d t h a t , p u r s u a n t to § 6-3-7(a)(1) and ( a ) ( 3 ) , t h e a c t i o n s h o u l d Chambers C i r c u i t C o u r t . in this case remain i n the The p o r t i o n s o f § 6-3-7(a) a t i s s u e provide: "(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 i n 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 t o the c l a i m occurred, or a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of r e a l property 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 " "(3) In the county i n which the p l a i n t i f f resided, 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 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 by 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 r e s i d e n c e . ... " 4 may 2120432 As t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s u b s e c t i o n (a)(1), the p a r t i e s disagree on w h e t h e r omissions g i v i n g r i s e t o the claim" occurred West F r a s e r "a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of the events or i n L e e C o u n t y , as a s s e r t s , o r i n Chambers C o u n t y , a s Hunt a s s e r t s . Hunt c o n t e n d s t h a t , " [ i ] n no u n c e r t a i n t e r m s , " h i s employment was t e r m i n a t e d i n Chambers C o u n t y . he was a t h i s home i n L a f a y e t t e , He e x p l a i n s t h a t , b e c a u s e i n Chambers C o u n t y , when he r e c e i v e d t h e l e t t e r i n f o r m i n g h i m t h a t h i s employment h a d b e e n terminated, a substantial portion of events, t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s j o b w i t h West F r a s e r , o c c u r r e d County. West F r a s e r , on t h e o t h e r i.e., the i n Chambers hand, a r g u e s i n i t s b r i e f to t h i s court that the d e c i s i o n t o terminate H u n t ' s employment was made i n L e e C o u n t y , b a s e d on a c t s Hunt p e r f o r m e d i n L e e C o u n t y , a n d n o t e s t h a t t h e l e t t e r was m a i l e d from Lee County; therefore, giving i t says, " a l l material [Hunt]'s r e t a l i a t o r y d i s c h a r g e facts claim occurred rise to i n Lee County." West F r a s e r a r g u e s t h a t H u n t ' s f o c u s on where he r e c e i v e d the termination letter i s misplaced. I n Ex p a r t e SouthTrust Bank o f T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , N.A., 619 So. 2d 1356 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , W i l l i a m P r i t c h e t t d e f a u l t e d on t h e l o a n he h a d o b t a i n e d S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y 5 from ("the bank") t o p u r c h a s e 2120432 a vehicle, a n d t h e bank r e p o s s e s s e d informed P r i t c h e t t that applied that amount the vehicle. The b a n k i t h a d s o l d t h e v e h i c l e f o r $500 a n d to the balance of P r i t c h e t t ' s loan. P r i t c h e t t a l l e g e d t h a t t h e v e h i c l e h a d b e e n s o l d f o r more t h a n $500, b u t o n l y $500 was a p p l i e d t o h i s b a l a n c e . He filed a c i v i l a c t i o n i n t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t a l l e g i n g the bank claims wanton/willful sought conversion, conduct, and m a l i c i o u s t o have C i r c u i t Court. of fraud, the action abuse of prosecution. transferred against process, The bank t o the Tuscaloosa When t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n , t h e bank f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. I d . a t 1358. The bank a s s e r t e d Pritchett made about t h e a c t u a l through Tuscaloosa. telephone court resale value calls of the vehicle and t h r o u g h mail in "occurred" Montgomery and that, i n Montgomery C o u n t y . from those therefore, his I d . Our supreme wrote: " I n A g e - H e r a l d P u b l i s h i n g Co. v. H u d d l e s t o n , 207 Ala. 40, 92 So. 193 ( 1 9 2 2 ) , a l i b e l a c t i o n , t h i s Court established that t h e term 'injury' f o r p u r p o s e s o f § 6-3-7 r e f e r s t o t h e w r o n g f u l a c t o r 6 to were sent However, P r i t c h e t t a r g u e d t h a t he r e c e i v e d communications "injuries" that the alleged misrepresentations 2120432 omission of the corporate defendant, not to the resulting damage to the p l a i n t i f f , and thus d e t e r m i n e d t h a t venue f o r s u c h an i n j u r y i s p r o p e r where a w r o n g f u l a c t was c o m m i t t e d , n o t where t h e damage r e s u l t e d . We n o t e t h a t t h e C o u r t d e v i a t e d f r o m i t s A g e - H e r a l d r u l e i n t h e l a t e r c a s e o f Kenney v. G u r l e y , 208 A l a . 623, 95 So. 34 ( 1 9 2 3 ) . There, t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t where l i b e l o u s m a t t e r s a r e p a s s e d t h r o u g h t h e m a i l f r o m one i n d i v i d u a l t o a n o t h e r , t h e ' i n j u r y ' t a k e s p l a c e where t h e m a t t e r is received. Unlike the holding i n Age-Herald, h o w e v e r , t h e Kenney h o l d i n g d i d n o t h i n g e upon § 6-3-7; r a t h e r , i t was b a s e d upon a l i b e l action b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s , and i t s f a c t - s p e c i f i c r a t i o n a l e i s inapposite here." Id. a t 1358. Our injuries supreme c o u r t went on t o h o l d Pritchett's alleged o c c u r r e d i n T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , where t h e bank made t e l e p h o n e c a l l s and s e n t m a i l t o P r i t c h e t t , n o t i n Montgomery C o u n t y , where P r i t c h e t t received those communications. Id. We n o t e t h a t t h e o n l y a u t h o r i t y Hunt r e l i e s on i n s u p p o r t o f his contention that the termination occurred in Chambers C o u n t y , where he r e c e i v e d t h e l e t t e r , i s Kenney v. G u r l e y , 208 Ala. 623, 95 So. 34 ( 1 9 2 3 ) , w h i c h t h e supreme c o u r t r e j e c t e d i n Ex p a r t e S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , s u p r a , as a b a s i s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g venue p u r s u a n t t o § 6-3-7. I n Ex p a r t e P i k e v i l l e C o u n t r y C l u b , 844 So. 2d 1186, 1189 (Ala. 2002), o u r supreme court explained that 7 i t found the 2120432 analysis of SouthTrust Bank particularly persuasive i n t e r p r e t i n g the current v e r s i o n of § 6-3-7(a)(1), in stating: "We c o n s t r u e ' t h e e v e n t s o r o m i s s i o n s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e c l a i m ' t o be a c l e a r r e f e r e n c e t o t h e w r o n g f u l acts or omissions of the corporate defendant. H a v i n g so c o n s t r u e d t h e s t a t u t e , we s e e no r e a s o n t o abandon t h e h o l d i n g o f Ex p a r t e S o u t h T r u s t Bank. T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t venue i n t h i s c a s e i s i m p r o p e r i n C o v i n g t o n C o u n t y as t o t h e [ d e f e n d a n t ] , because the event g i v i n g r i s e t o [the p l a i n t i f f ] ' s claims--the m a i l i n g of the l e t t e r c o n t a i n i n g the alleged misrepresentations--occurred in Marion C o u n t y , where t h e l e t t e r was m a i l e d , a n d n o t i n C o v i n g t o n C o u n t y , where [ t h e p l a i n t i f f ] r e c e i v e d t h e letter. See a l s o Ex p a r t e W i g i n t o n , 743 So. 2d 1071 (Ala. 1999)." In this case, Hunt a l l e g e d from h i s j o b o p e r a t i n g retaliation action. terminate letter from evidence was filed Opelika. a Fraser workers' undisputed H u n t ' s employment notifying West a gang saw a t i t s O p e l i k a f o r h i s having The that was Hunt o f West Accordingly, made Fraser's we that alleged wrongful acts occurred Chambers him saw m i l l i n compensation the d e c i s i o n to i n Opelika, d e c i s i o n was conclude Fraser's fired that and t h e mailed a l l of West i n Lee C o u n t y , n o t i n County. West F r a s e r a l s o d i s p u t e s H u n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t venue i s p r o p e r i n Chambers C o u n t y , p u r s u a n t t o § 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) ( 3 ) . Because Hunt r e s i d e s i n Chambers C o u n t y , i f West F r a s e r does business 8 2120432 by a g e n t i n Chambers C o u n t y , t h e n venue i n t h a t c o u n t y w o u l d be proper. West F r a s e r i s an i n t e g r a t e d f o r e s t - p r o d u c t s company t h a t produces news l u m b e r , wood c h i p s , print. Hunt interrogatories S e p t e m b e r 1, timber he f i b e r b o a r d , plywood, pulp, points out that, in p r o p o u n d e d , West F r a s e r 2009, t o September 1, i t p u r c h a s e d was bought 2012, response stated that 16.2% i n Chambers C o u n t y . 2.6% of during the that total West F r a s e r total During "parts Those p u r c h a s e s c o n s t i t u t e d spent on parts and supplies time. "To e s t a b l i s h t h a t a c o r p o r a t i o n does b u s i n e s s i n a p a r t i c u l a r county f o r p u r p o s e s of venue, p a s t i s o l a t e d t r a n s a c t i o n s are i n c o n c l u s i v e . Ex p a r t e H a r r i n g t o n Mfg. Co., 414 So. 2d 74 ( A l a . 1982) . A c o r p o r a t i o n does b u s i n e s s 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 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 o f t h e b u s i n e s s f u n c t i o n s f o r w h i c h t h e c o r p o r a t i o n was c r e a t e d . Ex p a r t e S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f T u s c a l o o s a C n t y . , N.A., 619 So. 2d 1356, 1358 ( A l a . 1993) . However, t h i s C o u r t has c o n s i d e r e d extraneous r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n s u f f i c i e n t to c o n s t i t u t e 'doing b u s i n e s s . ' F o r e x a m p l e , i n Ex p a r t e P a r s o n s & Whittemore Alabama Pine C o n s t r u c t i o n Corp., 658 So. 2d 414 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , and Ex p a r t e R e a l E s t a t e F i n a n c i n g , I n c . , 450 So. 2d 461 ( A l a . 1984), t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t f o r a c o n s t r u c t i o n company and real-estate financing company, respectively, r e t a i n i n g t h e s e r v i c e s o f an a t t o r n e y i n a c o u n t y on 9 to from of the t h a t same t i m e , West F r a s e r p u r c h a s e d $306,106 w o r t h o f and s u p p l i e s " i n Chambers C o u n t y . and 2120432 a case-by-case b a s i s d i d not constitute doing business i n that county. H i r i n g an a t t o r n e y was t a n g e n t i a l to the fulfillment of t h e i r primary business f u n c t i o n s . " Ex p a r t e E l l i o t t , Hunt r e l i e s Scott Bridge contention case, our Co., 80 on So. our 834 3d 908, 912 ( A l a . 2011). supreme c o u r t ' s So. 2d 79 d e c i s i o n i n Ex ( A l a . 2002), to support t h a t v e n u e i s p r o p e r i n Chambers C o u n t y . supreme c o u r t parte In his that wrote: " S c o t t Bridge notes t h a t i t i s i n the business o f c o n s t r u c t i n g b r i d g e s and i t a r g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e i t has n o t b u i l t a b r i d g e i n Chambers C o u n t y , i t has n o t 'done b u s i n e s s by a g e n t ' t h e r e . The b u s i n e s s o f S c o t t B r i d g e , h o w e v e r , s h o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d so narrowly. To fulfill i t s principal corporate f u n c t i o n of b u i l d i n g b r i d g e s , S c o t t Bridge must p u r c h a s e p a r t s , t o o l s , and e q u i p m e n t w i t h w h i c h t o perform that p r i n c i p a l corporate function. Bond a s s e r t s , and S c o t t B r i d g e does n o t r e f u t e , t h a t Scott Bridge buys from businesses located in Chambers C o u n t y s u p p l i e s t h a t c o s t i n e x c e s s o f $50,000 a y e a r . " Id. at The 81. court noted that, although the r e c o r d d i d not include a "detailed ... description of Scott Bridge's i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i t s p a r t s s u p p l i e r i n Chambers C o u n t y ... , t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t h i s C o u r t does have r e g a r d i n g S c o t t B r i d g e ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i t s s u p p l i e r i n Chambers C o u n t y i s t h a t S c o t t Bridge 'purchased h a n d r a i l p i p e , h a n d r a i l p o s t s , p r o t e c t i o n a n c h o r s , s u p p o r t s , and s h o e s w h i c h a r e u s e d i n S c o t t 10 2120432 Bridge's business [ o f bridge b u i l d i n g ] . ' (Trial c o u r t ' s o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e m o t i o n f o r a change o f venue.) Scott Bridge could presumably have purchased these materials elsewhere, and thus f u l f i l l e d i t s corporate purpose e n t i r e l y o u t s i d e of Chambers C o u n t y , b u t s p e n d i n g more t h a n $50,000 p e r y e a r i n Chambers C o u n t y on m a t e r i a l s n e c e s s a r y t o bridge construction i s s u f f i c i e n t to constitute ' d o i n g b u s i n e s s ' i n Chambers C o u n t y . " Id. a t 82. West F r a s e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e p u r c h a s e s i t made i n Chambers C o u n t y c o n s t i t u t e d " s u c h a s m a l l p o r t i o n o f i t s a c t i v i t y as t o c l e a r l y be n o n e s s e n t i a l t o i t s p r i n c i p a l c o r p o r a t e function." However, S c o t t B r i d g e does n o t i n c l u d e any f a c t s f r o m w h i c h we can conclude Bridge that o u r supreme d i d business court i n Chambers determined County based t h r e s h o l d , s u c h as p e r c e n t a g e o f t o t a l b u s i n e s s of purchases, or the l i k e . 2009, and approximately cannot September function 1, the purchase f o r which an Bridge, $300,000 2012, we i n parts cannot West from of timber "integrated l i k e West F r a s e r was c r e a t e d . Scott Scott on a certain costs, number I n t h i s c a s e , b e t w e e n September 1, 16% o f i t s t i m b e r say t h a t that Fraser Chambers purchased County. i s not a forest-products We business company" Moreover, given the h o l d i n g i n say t h a t and s u p p l i e s 11 the purchase from b u s i n e s s e s o f more than i n Chambers 2120432 County d u r i n g "doing the business" same t h r e e - y e a r t h i s court to overrule Scott A l t h o u g h i t makes c o m p e l l i n g s h o u l d be o v e r r u l e d , supreme c o u r t . liberty to overrule Wasdin, 655 TenEyck, So. 885 Accordingly, c a s e , we 2d So. to § that decision § 12-3-16. We 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. 146, 158 Scott 1995)." (Ala. Bridge to Civ. the are not at Thompson or modify those d e c i s i o n s . 1058 of v. TenEyck v. App. 2003). facts in this doing business in t h a t venue i n Chambers C o u n t y i s p r o p e r i n Lee Thus, venue i s proper both in C o u n t y , where t h e a l l e g e d w r o n g f u l occurred. However, proper must be West Fraser i n Chambers C o u n t y , asserts the t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e Lee f o r u m non The A l a . Code 1975, 6-3-7(a)(3). Chambers C o u n t y and Bridge. " t h i s c o u r t i s b o u n d by t h e d e c i s i o n s i n applying Chambers C o u n t y and acts a r g u m e n t s as t o why must c o n c l u d e t h a t West F r a s e r was pursuant constitute i n Chambers C o u n t y . West F r a s e r i n v i t e s our p e r i o d does n o t that, even i f venue retaliatory-discharge action C i r c u i t Court pursuant to c o n v e n i e n s s t a t u t e , § 6 - 3 - 2 1 . 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code f o r u m non conveniens s t a t u t e provides: "With respect to civil actions filed in an a p p r o p r i a t e v e n u e , any 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 12 is the 1975. 2120432 s h a l l , f o r t h e c o n v e n i e n c e o f p a r t i e s and w i t n e s s e s , o r 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 any civil 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 which the a c t i o n might have b e e n p r o p e r l y f i l e d and t h e c a s e s h a l l p r o c e e d as t h o u g h o r i g i n a l l y f i l e d t h e r e i n . " 1 T h i s c o u r t has recently discussed the a p p l i c a t i o n of § 6- 3-21.1(a), w r i t i n g : "Under 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 , a t r i a l c o u r t must t r a n s f e r an a c t i o n when a p a r t y s e e k i n g t h e t r a n s f e r p r o v e s e i t h e r (1) t h a t 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 o r w i t n e s s e s w o u l d be s i g n i f i c a n t l y a i d e d by t r a n s f e r , see Ex p a r t e N i c h o l s , 757 So. 2d 374, 378 ( A l a . 1999) ('[T]he b u r d e n i s on t h e 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 t r a n s f e r e e f o r u m 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 t h a n the plaintiff's chosen forum.'), or (2) that the ' i n t e r e s t s of j u s t i c e ' n e c e s s i t a t e a t r a n s f e r . Ex p a r t e N a t i o n a l Sec. I n s . Co., 727 So. 2d 788, 790 ( A l a . 1998) ('[T]he " i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e " [prong] r e q u i r e [ s ] t h e t r a n s f e r o f [an] a c t i o n f r o m a c o u n t y w i t h l i t t l e , i f any, c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e a c t i o n , t o the county with a strong connection to the action.')." Ex p a r t e V e o l i a E n v t l . SVC, So. 3d , [Ms. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2120270, M a r c h 8, 2013] 2013). "The ' i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e ' p r o n g o f § 6-3-21.1 r e q u i r e s 'the t r a n s f e r o f t h e a c t i o n f r o m a c o u n t y w i t h l i t t l e , i f any, c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e a c t i o n , t o the county w i t h a s t r o n g c o n n e c t i o n to the a c t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e N a t i o n a l Sec. I n s . Co., 727 So. 2d [788,] 790 [(Ala. 1998)]. Therefore, 'in analyzing the T h i s s t a t u t e does n o t apply i n proceedings seeking m o d i f i c a t i o n of c h i l d custody, v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s , or c h i l d support. See § 6-3-21.1(a) and § 30-3-5, A l a . Code 1975. 1 13 2120432 i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e p r o n g o f § 6-3-21.1, t h i s C o u r t f o c u s e s on w h e t h e r the "nexus" or " c o n n e c t i o n " b e t w e e n t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n and t h e o r i g i n a l f o r u m i s 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 p l a i n t i f f ' s forum w i t h the a c t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e F i r s t 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 . 2008) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t ' l i t i g a t i o n s h o u l d be h a n d l e d i n t h e f o r u m where t h e i n j u r y o c c u r r e d . ' Ex p a r t e F u l l e r , 955 So. 2d 414, 416 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . F u r t h e r , i n e x a m i n i n g w h e t h e r i t i s i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e t o t r a n s f e r a c a s e , we c o n s i d e r 'the b u r d e n o f p i l i n g c o u r t s e r v i c e s and r e s o u r c e s upon t h e p e o p l e o f a c o u n t y t h a t i s n o t a f f e c t e d by t h e c a s e and ... t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e p e o p l e o f a c o u n t y t o have a c a s e t h a t a r i s e s i n t h e i r county t r i e d c l o s e to p u b l i c view i n t h e i r county.' Ex p a r t e S m i t h s Water & Sewer A u t h . , 982 So. 2d 484, 490 ( A l a . 2007) . The p e t i t i o n e r s i n t h i s case are thus r e q u i r e d t o demonstrate '"that h a v i n g t h e c a s e h e a r d i n [Lee] C o u n t y w o u l d more serve the i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e " ' than h a v i n g the case h e a r d i n [Chambers] C o u n t y . Ex p a r t e F i r s t T e n n e s s e e Bank, 994 So. 2d a t 909 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e F u l l e r , 955 So. 2d 414, 416 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ) . " Ex p a r t e I n d i a n a M i l l s & Mfg., I n c . , 10 So. 3d 536, 540 ( A l a . 2008). In Indiana Mills, our supreme court granted d e f e n d a n t s ' mandamus p e t i t i o n and o r d e r e d t h e t r i a l the court to t r a n s f e r t h e c a s e f r o m Macon C o u n t y t o Lee C o u n t y b a s e d on t h e " i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e " p r o n g o f § 6-3-21.1. In doing so, the court c i t e d evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the a c c i d e n t g i v i n g t o t h e a c t i o n o c c u r r e d i n Lee C o u n t y , t h a t t h e rise law-enforcement and e m e r g e n c y p e r s o n n e l who h a d r e s p o n d e d t o t h e a c c i d e n t were 14 2120432 b a s e d o u t o f Lee C o u n t y , t h a t t h e c h i e f d e p u t y c o r o n e r who had i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e d e c e d e n t ' s d e a t h d i d h i s work i n Lee C o u n t y , and t h a t t h e r e c o r d s and documents o f t h e f i r e d e p a r t m e n t that h a d r e s p o n d e d t o t h e a c c i d e n t were l o c a t e d i n Lee C o u n t y . Our supreme c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e o n l y m a t t e r s c o n n e c t i n g t h e c a s e to Macon C o u n t y defendants the were the facts that one of the individual r e s i d e d i n Macon C o u n t y and t h a t t h e e m p l o y e r of p e r s o n k i l l e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t c o n d u c t e d b u s i n e s s i n Macon County. Our supreme c o u r t h e l d C o u n t y and t h e c a s e was County and t h e c a s e was that t h e nexus between s t r o n g , t h a t t h e nexus between weak, and that the t r i a l Lee Macon court had a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n r e f u s i n g t o t r a n s f e r t h e c a s e t o Lee County. Indiana M i l l s , 10 So. 3d a t 542. S i m i l a r l y , i n Ex p a r t e A u t a u g a H e a t i n g & C o o l i n g , LLC, So. 3d petition 745, 750 ( A l a . 2010), for a writ our supreme court 58 granted a o f mandamus and d i r e c t e d t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t t o t r a n s f e r t h a t c a s e f r o m Montgomery C o u n t y t o Elmore County, conveniens. civil to pursuant to the doctrine of forum A f t e r comparing the s t r o n g c o n n e c t i o n between t h e a c t i o n and E l m o r e C o u n t y , where t h e e v e n t s g i v i n g the case non occurred, and t h e weak 15 connection between rise the 2120432 a c t i o n and Montgomery C o u n t y , where t h e a c t i o n had been our supreme c o u r t filed, stated: " T h i s C o u r t s e e s no n e e d t o b u r d e n Montgomery C o u n t y , w i t h i t s weak c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e c a s e , w i t h an a c t i o n t h a t a r o s e i n E l m o r e C o u n t y s i m p l y b e c a u s e the individual defendant resides i n Montgomery County and the corporate defendant does some business there. We t h u s c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l court exceeded i t s discretion i n denying the p e t i t i o n e r s ' m o t i o n f o r a change o f v e n u e . " Id. at In 750-51. t h i s c a s e , t h e r e i s a s t r o n g c o n n e c t i o n between retaliatory-discharge all action As discussed, t h e c o n d u c t made t h e b a s i s o f t h e a c t i o n o c c u r r e d i n Lee County, County. and Hunt's "injury" compensation facility i n Lee C o u n t y . Lee C o u n t y . this On i n this His underlying physical workers' to and Lee C o u n t y . Hunt's case injury--the action--occurred Hunt was occurred at in subject West Lee of h i s Fraser's treated for that injury i n The w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n c a s e , w h i c h i s r e l a t e d c a s e , i s b e i n g h e a r d i n t h e Lee C i r c u i t C o u r t . the other hand, the connection between the r e t a l i a t o r y - d i s c h a r g e a c t i o n and Chambers C o u n t y i s v i r t u a l l y nonexistent. Hunt lives i n Chambers C o u n t y . The b u s i n e s s t h a t West F r a s e r c o n d u c t e d i n Chambers C o u n t y and t h a t s e r v e s 16 2120432 as the basis f o r venue connection with this i n v o l v i n g Chambers case this i n that case. court i n Autauga Heating There county no material a r e no r e l e v a n t facts i n County. has To echo o u r supreme & C o o l i n g , we s e e no n e e d t o b u r d e n Chambers C o u n t y w i t h an a c t i o n t h a t a r o s e i n Lee C o u n t y s i m p l y because business Hunt lives there unrelated a n d b e c a u s e West F r a s e r to this case there. conducted Accordingly, we conclude t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying West F r a s e r ' s Circuit motion f o r a change o f venue. The Chambers Court i s hereby d i r e c t e d t o t r a n s f e r t h i s the Lee C i r c u i t action to Court. PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Pittman, Thomas, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 17 writing.

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.