Ex parte Brian Nelson Excavating, LLC. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Alvin Prater, Robert Hall, and Jessie Hall v. Brian Nelson Excavating, LLC)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 06/12/2009 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 , 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2008-2009 1071473 Ex p a r t e B r i a n N e l s o n E x c a v a t i n g , LLC PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Alvin P r a t e r , Robert H a l l , and J e s s i e Hall v. Brian Nelson Excavating, LLC) (Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t , PARKER, Justice. Brian petition the Nelson f o r a writ Montgomery Nelson's CV-04-3009) motion Excavating, LLC o f mandamus Circuit Court ("Nelson"), asking this to vacate filed Court to direct i t s order f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . N e l s o n ' s this denying petition for 1071473 the writ o f mandamus p r e s e n t s by this Court: caused by ground a (1) vibrations trespass either a six-year of Is or party, that so or Our a consideration to a transferred claim this and (2) knowledge s u b s t i t u t i o n of any damages nuisance respectively; constructive of pretermits for for residence through so as to s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s or a two-year r e l a t e back to denial claim or named d e f e n d a n t a f t e r t h e does not questions concussion claim limitations, knowledge a two that what of the party e x p i r a t i o n of the the f i l i n g of p e t i t i o n on discussion the the statute constitutes a of a fictitiously limitations period original a peripheral of invoke identity for the complaint? issue, questions however, presented by Nelson. Background Nelson Prater, is Robert the and on December 6, fictitiously described R. Civ. Russell P. With Procedural defendant Hall, defendant and in Jessie an defendant pursuant of Construction Company of to Nelson, the 2 filed Nelson 2 0 0 6 , when i t was exception work action Hall. the subcontracted Posture the was by added substituted to Rule 9(h), general Alabama, original Alvin as a for a Ala. contractor, Inc., named which defendants 1071473 are no l o n g e r On parties January to the a c t i o n . 27, 2003, Robert 1 Hall and A l v i n Prater, were n e i g h b o r s , f e l t v i b r a t i o n s i n t h e ground t h a t shook who their h o u s e s . Upon i n v e s t i g a t i n g , t h e y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e s o u r c e o f the vibrations construction the rear with was of a parking of t h e i r the a vibratory person thereafter he supervisor gave Robert operating with Robert being l o t on c h u r c h p r o p e r t y properties. spoke compactor Hall the that Hall that i n the adjoined immediately compactor, person's a business used and spoke shortly supervisor. card that The identified N e l s o n as t h e e m p l o y e r o f t h e p e r s o n o p e r a t i n g the compactor. A few days l a t e r , information Robert H a l l communicated t h i s to P r a t e r , who w r o t e down t h e name " B r i a n N e l s o n " a n d a t e l e p h o n e number f r o m t h e b u s i n e s s card to h i s wife, that soon after Jessie they card. R o b e r t H a l l gave t h e b u s i n e s s Hall. The H a l l s experienced and P r a t e r the v i b r a t i o n s in allege their h o u s e s , t h e y n o t i c e d e x t e r i o r a n d i n t e r i o r damage t o t h e w a l l s of their planters, houses patios, and t o t h e c e i l i n g s , and f e n c e s of t h e i r flooring, brick work, houses. The o r i g i n a l named d e f e n d a n t s w e r e S t a t e F a r m F i r e a n d C a s u a l t y Company, S a f e c o I n s u r a n c e Company o f A m e r i c a , R u s s e l l C o n s t r u c t i o n Company o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , a n d J a d e Engineering and I n s p e c t i o n , I n c . 1 3 1071473 The Halls Nelson's a June apparently liability 18, Nelson's 2003, this case." Excavating Hall carrier letter insurer, "investigation advised letter this and 12, 2004, Company, Safeco Construction Inspection, lists 6, 2006, claims, to from fraud, almost Companies, Auto's not at f a u l t as "Brian in Nelson that underlying Robert Farm of Jade fictitiously from bad and Casualty America, Russell Engineering named compactor insurance faith, and and defendants, allegedly used companies breach amended t h e i r years substitute the on on the They a l s o s o u g h t damages, i n c l u d i n g the the H a l l s four Fire action f o r t h e damage t o t h e i r h o u s e s vibrations and the State several adjoining church property. Prater filed Inc., by things, was with because State J e s s i e H a l l acknowledged Alabama, caused damages, house that insured Company compensation other Hall the claim Insurance our i n s u r e d against I n c . , and the Auto Robert Prater seeking punitive State Insurance of insurance letter. Halls November an f o r damage t o t h e i r from Company LC." The filed indicates that The received had for 4 one of December underlying the among contract. c o m p l a i n t on a f t e r the events Nelson of for, their fictitiously 1071473 described the d e f e n d a n t s . In response, two-year claim, and statute on May judgment, trespass, Ala. that the Code against Nelson. had party practice of no f o r a summary Nelson further asserted that both the entity Prater that to use the bar of the the Halls the employed Prater person claims and knew who the fictitious- two-year claim. on 6-2-38, their Alabama's to a nuisance and based limitations in § barred to circumvent evidence claim claims improperly attempted compactor, had of nuisance undisputed nuisance because statute Nelson that argued Nelson was operated the the f i c t i t i o u s - p a r t y - p r a c t i c e r u l e , Rule 9(h), A l a . C i v . P., was not Prater and the H a l l s Nelson limitations 1975, Halls statute limitations applicable against the the the bar to a a motion for that R. filed because and two-year Halls of that, Prater 1975, pleaded limitations applicable 1, 2 0 0 8 , N e l s o n arguing established of Nelson was available based i s s i x y e a r s . As fictitiously them. responded, on for trespass, to arguing that trespass pursuant f o r the named d e f e n d a n t , and to § that the 6-2-34(2), claim statute for a argued: " A l t h o u g h [ P r a t e r a n d t h e H a l l s ] may aware that [Nelson] performed work have at of A l a . Code s u b s t i t u t i o n of Nelson they 5 their been the 1071473 construction cite [sic], [Prater and the Halls] b e l i e v e d [ i t ] t o be m e r e l y a s u p e r v i s i n g e m p l o y e e o f R u s s e l l C o n s t r u c t i o n . [ P r a t e r and the H a l l s ] were u n a w a r e t h a t [ N e l s o n ] was a l i a b l e p a r t y u n t i l a f t e r r e c e i v i n g R u s s e l l C o n s t r u c t i o n ' s M o t i o n f o r Summary Judgment. S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , the second amended c o m p l a i n t was filed." The judgment trial on court June 18, denied 2008, Nelson's and issued motion the for a following summary order: "The a b o v e - s t y l e d m a t t e r c o m e s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t on D e f e n d a n t ' s , B r i a n N e l s o n E x c a v a t i n g , L L C , m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t . A h e a r i n g was h e l d on J u n e 5, 2008, at w h i c h r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r b o t h p a r t i e s was present. I n o r d e r f o r a p a r t y t o p r e v a i l on m o t i o n for summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate 'that there i s no genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . ' [ A l a . R. Civ. P.,] Rule 56(c)(3) (2007). " [ N e l s o n ] contends t h a t the c l a i m s brought are s i m i l a r to t h o s e f o r damage[] c a u s e d by c o n c u s s i o n o r v i b r a t i o n s f r o m b l a s t i n g on a d j a c e n t property, and should fall under a two-year statute of l i m i t a t i o n s and thus, should be b a r r e d under the A l a b a m a Code 1975, § 6-2-38. [ P r a t e r and t h e H a l l s ] c l a i m t h e i r a c t i o n s h o u l d be t r e a t e d as a t r e s p a s s , which carries a 6 year statute of limitations p u r s u a n t t o § 6-2-34(2) o f t h e A l a b a m a Code 1975. "Trespass and private nuisance are separate fields of tort liability relating to actionable interference with the possession of land, the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two b e i n g t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h Defendant's actions impede P l a i n t i f f ' s exclusive p o s s e s s o r y i n t e r e s t . T h e r e r e m a i n s a q u e s t i o n as t o whether [ N e l s o n ' s ] a c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e d n u i s a n c e or t r e s p a s s ; t h e r e f o r e , [ N e l s o n ' s ] m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s due t o be a n d i s h e r e b y d e n i e d . 6 1071473 "Done t h i s Nelson this then filed Court denying t h e 18 J u n e to this petition direct does not complaint court motion o f mandamus a s k i n g to vacate i t s order and t o e n t e r a summary f a v o r on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e c l a i m a g a i n s t relate and for a writ the t r i a l i t s summary-judgment judgment i n Nelson's it 2008." back i s thus to the barred by filing the of the two-year original statute of limitations. Standard A writ only o f mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y when sought; there adequate 153, by a r e f u s a l t o do E x p a r t e BOC Group, 156 right to the order to perform, s o ; (3) t h e l a c k of another I n c . , 823 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 0 , 1 2 7 2 (Ala. 2000)). "'a w r i t merits an of o f mandamus w i l l order j u d g m e n t . ' " Ex p a r t e Empire 893, legal 2 0 0 1 ) ( c i t i n g E x p a r t e I n v e r n e s s C o n s t r . C o . , 775 S o . 2 d Generally, the clear available r e m e d y ; a n d (4) t h e 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 court." (Ala. i s : "(1) a remedy (2) a n i m p e r a t i v e d u t y u p o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t accompanied the of Review 894 denying Fire a 7 motion & Marine (Ala. 1998)(quoting Central not issue to review for a summary I n s . C o . , 720 S o . 2 d Bank o f t h e South, 675 1071473 So. of a 2 d 4 0 3 , 406 mandamus denial i s the proper of a motion originally listed "undisputed with due evidence as Snow, However, f o r summary shows t h a t judgment t o seek filed the p l a i n t i f f the p l a i n t i f f 764 S o . 2 d 5 3 1 , 537 for a writ (Ala. the review by a named d e f e n d a n t i n identifying the party a petition v e h i c l e by which as a f i c t i t i o u s l y diligence defendant parte (Ala. 1996)). party when t h e failed to act fictitiously intended of named t o s u e . " Ex 1999). Analysis The Rule use of f i c t i t i o u s - p a r t y 9(h), pleadings i s authorized by A l a . R. C i v . P.: "(h) Fictitious Parties. When a party i s i g n o r a n t o f t h e name o f a n o p p o s i n g p a r t y a n d s o alleges i n the party's pleading, the opposing party may be d e s i g n a t e d b y a n y name, a n d when t h a t p a r t y ' s true name i s discovered, the process and a l l pleadings and p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e a c t i o n may be a m e n d e d b y s u b s t i t u t i n g t h e t r u e name." Rule back of 15(c), an A l a . R. amended C i v . P., pleading to provides the date f o r the relation of original the pleading: " ( c ) R e l a t i o n B a c k o f A m e n d m e n t s . An amendment of a pleading r e l a t e s back to the date of the o r i g i n a l p l e a d i n g when "(1) provides r e l a t i o n back i s p e r m i t t e d by t h e law t h a t the statute of l i m i t a t i o n s applicable to 8 1071473 the action, or "(2) the claim or defense asserted i n the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, t r a n s a c t i o n , or occurrence s e t f o r t h or attempted to be s e t f o r t h i n t h e o r i g i n a l p l e a d i n g , e x c e p t a s may be otherwise provided in Rule 13(c) for counterclaims maturing or acquired a f t e r pleading, or "(3) t h e amendment, o t h e r t h a n one n a m i n g a p a r t y u n d e r t h e p a r t y ' s t r u e name a f t e r h a v i n g b e e n i n i t i a l l y s u e d u n d e r a f i c t i t i o u s name, c h a n g e s t h e p a r t y o r t h e n a m i n g o f t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom a c l a i m i s a s s e r t e d i f t h e f o r e g o i n g p r o v i s i o n (2) i s satisfied and, w i t h i n the applicable period of l i m i t a t i o n s o r one h u n d r e d t w e n t y (120) d a y s o f t h e commencement o f t h e a c t i o n , w h i c h e v e r comes l a t e r , t h e p a r t y t o b e b r o u g h t i n b y amendment (A) h a s received such n o t i c e of the i n s t i t u t i o n of the action that the party w i l l n o t be p r e j u d i c e d i n m a i n t a i n i n g a d e f e n s e on t h e m e r i t s , a n d (B) knew o r s h o u l d h a v e known t h a t , b u t f o r a m i s t a k e concerning the i d e n t i t y of the p r o p e r p a r t y , the a c t i o n would have been b r o u g h t a g a i n s t t h e p a r t y , or "(4) r e l a t i o n b a c k i s p e r m i t t e d by p r i n c i p l e s applicable to f i c t i t i o u s party p r a c t i c e pursuant to Rule The the 9(h)." applicability s u b s t i t u t i o n o f a named party i n this applies. reach party for a of r e l a t i o n issue the statute of l i m i t a t i o n s i s presented. question of which 9 Here, back fictitiously case i s dependent upon w h i c h l i m i t a t i o n s I f the six-year relation-back not of the p r i n c i p l e statute of named period applies, the t r i a l to no court d i d limitations 1071473 governs. "There remains actions constituted [ N e l s o n ' s ] motion hereby summary the a issue or to the trial are not "properly petitioner fact not that a The 2d ... statute of petition the issue will not not do. and a l a c k of other appeal." to determine addressed denied this ... the adequate remedy. The is applicable parte because the case not is by issues o f mandamus, due Ex is determine Certain l i m i t a t i o n s defense in be of l i m i t a t i o n s have t h a t was (Ala. 1987)(citations is to fictitious-party/ first for issuing a writ 955 due therefore, w r i t o f mandamus, b e c a u s e o f a remedy by 954, relation-back Court r a i s e d by a proper basis So. the m u s t show availability 514 This [Nelson's] i r r e l e v a n t , to would s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s question is statute reach Court whether trespass; issue the court. to six-year need this as judgment relation-back was relation-back nuisance for would render the there question Because denied." whether a Southland to is the Bank, omitted). fictitious-party/ ripe for mandamus review. PETITION Cobb, Murdock, DENIED. C.J., and and Lyons, Shaw, J J . , Woodall, concur. 10 Stuart, Smith, Bolin,

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.