Branded Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Universal Truckload Services, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Plaintiff Branded Trailer Sales, Inc. (Branded) appealed a circuit court judgment that dismissed its case against Universal Truckload Services for lack of personal jurisdiction. A customer contacted Branded about having some flatbed trailers designed and manufactured. Branded contacted Universal for a recommendation for companies that could do the work. Universal recommended Liddell Trailers, LLC to design and manufacture the trailers. Branded entered into a contract with Liddell. The contract provided that Universal would buy several of the specially-designed trailers from Branded. Liddell later contacted Branded that the price for each trailer would increase from their previously-agreed cost, and that it would take longer for the components to be assembled. Branded would later learn that Universal negotiated a deal directly with Liddell to provide the same trailers at a lower price, excluding Branded from the agreement. Branded filed suit alleging that Universal and Liddell had intentionally interfered with the Branded-Liddell contract. Upon review, the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence that Branded made detailed assertions regarding its theories of personal jurisdiction, and the record reflected Branded presented that evidence to support those assertions. Therefore, the Court found that the trial court exceeded its discretion when it granted Universal's motion to dismiss. The Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Download PDF
REL: 06/24/2011 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 1090356 Branded T r a i l e r Sales, Inc. v. Universal Truckload Services, Inc. Appeal WISE, Justice. The appeals granting from T u s c a l o o s a C i r c u i t (CV-09-900065) Court 1 plaintiff, from a a motion Branded judgment Trailer Sales, I n c . ("Branded"), of the Tuscaloosa to dismiss asserting Circuit lack of Court, personal T h i s case was o r i g i n a l l y a s s i g n e d t o a n o t h e r J u s t i c e o n t h i s Court. I t was r e a s s i g n e d t o J u s t i c e W i s e on J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2011. 1 1090356 jurisdiction Truckload filed by Services, one of Inc. the defendants, ("Universal"). We Universal reverse and remand. Facts In its Branded customer a wind towers wind a for towers; 3 Michigan subsequently in late Branded that and History instituting company trailers Universal. Procedural that that about was that or underlying early having April action, 2008, a flatbed trailers wind towers; that Universal in customer; were the March manufactured to haul trucking purchase that, contacted d e s i g n e d and was complaint alleged 2 and the that specially Branded business Universal of hauling needed manufactured subsequently to to haul contacted Branded i s a L o u i s i a n a corporation; Universal is corporation. further i t contacted Branded Liddell Trailers, alleged LLC that ("Liddell"), In i t s brief to t h i s Court, Universal asserts that subsequent d i s c o v e r y i n the case, i n v o l v i n g another defendant, L i d d e l l T r a i l e r s , L L C , i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e c u s t o m e r was G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c Company. 2 Branded's subsequent pleadings and the affidavit i t s u b m i t t e d i n support of those p l e a d i n g s i n c l u d e d a l l e g a t i o n s that Universal initiated contact with B r a n d e d and asked B r a n d e d t o l o c a t e a company t h a t w o u l d d e s i g n and m a n u f a c t u r e f l a t b e d t r a i l e r s to haul wind towers. 3 2 1090356 which i s an Alabama manufacturers of manufacturing such corporation, trailers about specialized and the cost several other of designing trailers; that i t presented Universal with several different options; that Universal Liddell to design Branded entered and into that Liddell would cost to Branded that i tentered that Universal a manufacture contract design with trailers; Liddell and manufacture o f $168,680 into the each. a contract and that that alleged provided the f i r s t to order two t r a i l e r s t o be d e l i v e r e d t o U n i v e r s a l b y t h e f i r s t week o f A u g u s t notified alleged Branded that, that the "[s]oon cost of thereafter," the trailers increased, that the completion date f o r the t r a i l e r s extended, and that accordance with also alleged agreement further i t would the previously that Universal to purchase alleged that not build the a g r e e d upon from i t subsequently learned 3 2008. Liddell would that be w o u l d be in Branded terminated Branded. up were trailers design. subsequently the t r a i l e r s at a from i ta t a p r i c e of $244,465.84 e a c h ; t h a t U n i v e r s a l had the o p t i o n Branded that provided further Universal w o u l d p u r c h a s e two t r a i l e r s t o e i g h t more t r a i l e r s ; a n d t h a t chose the t r a i l e r s Branded with and the Branded Universal 1090356 and Liddell entered into an agreement U n i v e r s a l would purchase d i r e c t l y had agreed Liddell to design excluded and from L i d d e l l manufacture; Branded d e l i v e r e d the f i r s t pursuant from the Universal agreement; that i n late 2008 o r e a r l y J a n u a r y 2 0 0 9 ; a n d that a sales and Liddell December transaction. On commission February based 2, Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t had each 2009, relationship Defendant, without relating to Liddell had Commission the the Branded filed interfered between trailers violated more the to make Liddell through because i t t h e two "innocently, recklessly i t would manufacture t o be p u r c h a s e d b y U n i v e r s a l through 4 the Liddell and the the other transaction rewarding"; that Representatives i n fraud because i t misrepresented that (2) t r a i l e r s t o b e [Branded]"; that Liddell misrepresented that the Sales r e c k l e s s l y or i n t e n t i o n a l l y would purchase and financially Alabama and contract [Branded] justification, receive complaint i n with A c t ; t h a t U n i v e r s a l had engaged "innocently, a d i d not Court, a l l e g i n g that Universal "intentionally business it on Branded which the t r a i l e r s i t that two t r a i l e r s t o U n i v e r s a l to manufactured had engaged or t h e two in by fraud intentionally (2) t r a i l e r s [Branded]"; that Liddell 1090356 b r e a c h e d i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h B r a n d e d when i t d i d n o t d e l i v e r t h e trailers; and that Universal B r a n d e d when i t r e f u s e d breached to purchase the t r a i l e r s On M a r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 , U n i v e r s a l R. Civ. P., jurisdiction. support from motion On May to Universal. Peterson, 28, 2009, In that the filed dismiss of i t s motion to dismiss Mike i t s contract for from Branded. 12(b)(2), A l a . lack Universal of filed and a supporting director affidavit, a Rule of Peterson Risk personal a brief i n affidavit Management f o r stated: "3. [ U n i v e r s a l ] i s a p r i m a r i l y n o n - a s s e t b a s e d provider of transportation services to shippers i n the U n i t e d States and i n the Canadian p r o v i n c e s o f O n t a r i o and Quebec. [ U n i v e r s a l ] ' s headquarters and corporate and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s a r e l o c a t e d i n Warren, M i c h i g a n . "4. [Universal] i s a business corporation organized, incorporated, and e x i s t i n g p u r s u a n t t o the laws o f t h e S t a t e o f M i c h i g a n . [Universal] i s not registered or q u a l i f i e d t o do b u s i n e s s i n Alabama as a f o r e i g n c o r p o r a t i o n , does n o t have any r e g i s t e r e d agent i n Alabama, and does n o t m a i n t a i n any o f f i c e s i n Alabama. "5. [Universal] does n o t have any o f f i c e r s , employees, o r d i r e c t o r s l i v i n g i n Alabama. "6. business Alabama, solicit state of [ U n i v e r s a l ] d o e s n o t h a v e a n y a g e n t s t h a t do i n Tuscaloosa County or i n the state of and does n o t have any a g e n t s t h a t r e g u l a r l y business i n Tuscaloosa County or i n the Alabama. 5 with 1090356 "7. [ U n i v e r s a l ] d o e s n o t c o n d u c t a n y b u s i n e s s i n T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y o r i n t h e s t a t e o f Alabama on a regular basis, does n o t have any customers i n A l a b a m a f o r whom i t r e g u l a r l y p e r f o r m s a n y w o r k o r services, and does not regularly transport or deliver any goods, products, o r equipment into Alabama f o r any o f i t scustomer. real " 8 . [ U n i v e r s a l ] d o e s n o t own, r e n t , o r l e a s e a n y o r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y i n Alabama. "9. [ U n i v e r s a l ] d o e s n o t m a i n t a i n a n y o f f i c e s o r p l a c e s o f b u s i n e s s i n Alabama, and does n o t have o r m a i n t a i n any assets i n Alabama. "10. [ U n i v e r s a l ] d o e s n o t m a i n t a i n a n y t e l e p h o n e numbers i n Alabama, and does not maintain any f a c s i m i l e numbers i n Alabama. "11. [Universal] does n o t m a i n t a i n accounts o r b u s i n e s s records i n Alabama. any bank "12. I h a v e r e v i e w e d i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e allegations of the complaint filed by Branded T r a i l e r Sales and the business records related to those a l l e g a t i o n s . B a s e d o n my r e v i e w o f t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n , I c a n make t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s o n behalf of [Universal]. "13. No meetings occurred between r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f [Universal] and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of Branded T r a i l e r S a l e s i n Alabama. " 1 4 . No r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f [ U n i v e r s a l ] placed any t e l e p h o n e c a l l s t o B r a n d e d T r a i l e r S a l e s o r i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n A l a b a m a , o r made a n y s u c h c a l l s from Alabama. " 1 5 . No r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f [ U n i v e r s a l ] s e n t a n y f a c s i m i l e correspondence t o Branded T r a i l e r Sales or its representatives i n Alabama, o r sent any such correspondence from Alabama. 6 1090356 " 1 6 . No r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f [ U n i v e r s a l ] s e n t a n y email correspondence to Branded T r a i l e r Sales or i t s representatives i n Alabama, or sent any such correspondence from Alabama. " 1 7 . No r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f [ U n i v e r s a l ] h a d a n y dealings with Branded Trailer Sales or i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t h a t t o o k p l a c e i n Alabama, o r were otherwise d i r e c t e d a t Alabama. "18. [Universal] d i d not enter into contracts w i t h Branded T r a i l e r S a l e s , Inc., i n Alabama, o r any c o n t r a c t s t h a t were t o be p e r f o r m e d i n A l a b a m a . " T h e r e f o r e , B r a n d e d h a s n o t shown t h a t U n i v e r s a l i t s e l f has s u f f i c i e n t g e n e r a l c o n t a c t s w i t h Alabama to e s t a b l i s h personal j u r i s d i c t i o n . " On M a y 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 , B r a n d e d motion t o dismiss, filed as w e l l as a motion t o s t r i k e Peterson's a f f i d a v i t ; i t also f i l e d 56(f), A l a . R. C i v . P., a s k i n g motion to dismiss it response, Ostrander. i t s b r i e f and a motion pursuant to Rule the court to treat Universal's a s one f o r a summary j u d g m e n t a n d t o a l l o w t o conduct a d d i t i o n a l discovery. 2009, a response t o Universal's Branded attached In h i s affidavit, I n s u p p o r t o f i t s May 2 9 , an Ostrander affidavit from Wayne stated: " 1 . My name i s Wayne O s t r a n d e r a n d I am o v e r 1 9 years o f age. I work f o r Branded T r a i l e r Sales and I have p e r s o n a l knowledge of the facts stated herein. "2. [Universal] contacted [Branded] and requested that [Branded] find a company to manufacture a t r a i l e r to certain specifications. 7 1090356 A f t e r [Branded] p r e s e n t e d [ U n i v e r s a l ] w i t h several options, [Universal] chose L i d d e l l Trailers, LLC ('Liddell') to build the t r a i l e r s . " 3 . L i d d e l l i s a company r e g i s t e r e d i n A l a b a m a with i t s principle [ s i c ]place of business i n S p r i n g v i l l e , AL. "4. P u r s u a n t t o t h e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n L i d d e l l , [Branded], and [ U n i v e r s a l ] , L i d d e l l would b u i l d t h e t r a i l e r s i n Alabama. "5. Liddell and [Universal] both informed [Branded] t h a t t h e y would n o t u p h o l d t h e i r existing agreements. [Branded] later learned that [Universal] agreed t o purchase and L i d d e l l agreed t o manufacture the trailers, thereby excluding [Branded]. "6. I n o r d e r to [Universal] had t o numerous t i m e s . The this complaint was Alabama. facilitate this later deal, make contact with Alabama w r o n g d o i n g made t h e b a s i s o f therefore projected toward "7. At the completion of the deal between [ U n i v e r s a l ] and L i d d e l l , [ U n i v e r s a l ] took possession of t h e t r a i l e r s i n Alabama." In Branded's Rule had f i l e d a motion the motion t o dismiss then 5 6 ( f ) motion, to strike Branded Universal's and t o s t r i k e brief Peterson's stated that i t i n support of affidavit. stated: "In the event that t h i s Court denied [Branded]'s motion t o s t r i k e [ U n i v e r s a l ] ' s b r i e f and a f f i d a v i t , filed contemporaneously hereto, and treats [Universal]'s motion t o dismiss as a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t , [ B r a n d e d ] w i l l r e q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l 8 I t 1090356 t i m e t o , among o t h e r t h i n g s c o n d u c t d i s c o v e r y and o p p o s e [ U n i v e r s a l ] ' s m o t i o n f o r summary judgment. P a r t i c u l a r l y , [Branded] would r e q u i r e t i m e t o depose t h e a f f i a n t whose a f f i d a v i t i s a t t a c h e d t o t h e b r i e f titled Defendant Universal Truckload Services, Inc.'s B r i e f i n Support of i t s Rule 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss f o r Lack of Personal Jurisdiction." On June Universal's include a Universal of motion court to dismiss. of that hearing. a supplemental b r i e f filed to a hearing the record On June on does 17, not 2009, i n support of i t s motion from Peterson. On t h a t same a response to Universal's b r i e f i n support dismiss. for additional Branded conducted However, and a s e c o n d a f f i d a v i t i t s motion request, the t r i a l transcript Branded request 2009, filed to dismiss date, 2, time That to response conduct also discovery. included In stated: "[I]n the event that this Court determines s u f f i c i e n t c o n t a c t s have not been demonstrated t o o v e r c o m e due p r o c e s s , [ B r a n d e d ] a s k s t h a t t h i s c o u r t allow a d d i t i o n a l time to conduct discovery. While this brief outlines numerous contacts between [ U n i v e r s a l ] and Alabama, [Branded] i s c o n f i d e n t t h a t through discovery, i t will uncover many more c o n t a c t s and be a b l e t o d e s c r i b e s u c h c o n t a c t s i n greater detail. As i n t h e c a s e o f Ex p a r t e B u f k i n , [ B r a n d e d ] , a t minimum, has ' a t l e a s t a l l e g [ e d ] f a c t s that would support a colorable claim of jurisdiction.' E x p a r t e B u f k i n , 936 S o . 2 d 1042, 1047 (Ala 2006). Therefore, 'Limited discovery could f l e s h out [the p l a i n t i f f ' s ] a l l e g a t i o n s and c o u l d l e a d t o a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t can 9 a that 1090356 exercise personal defendant].' Id. jurisdiction over [the "The Alabama Supreme C o u r t has ruled that although the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstration, the court should a s s i s t the p l a i n t i f f and a l l o w t h e p l a i n t i f f t o c o n d u c t jurisdictional discovery unless their claim i s clearly frivolous. I d . , q u o t i n g T o y s 'R' U s , I n c . v . S t e p Two, S.A., 318 F . 3 d 4 4 6 , 456 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) . "'Although the p l a i n t i f f bears the burden of demonstrating facts that support personal jurisdiction, Pinker [v. Roche H o l d i n g s L t d . , 292 F . 3 d 3 6 1 , 368 ( 3 r d C i r . 2002)], courts are to a s s i s t the p l a i n t i f f by a l l o w i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d i s c o v e r y u n l e s s the plaintiffs claim is "clearly f r i v o l o u s , " M a s s a c h u s e t t s S c h o o l o f Law a t A n d o v e r , I n c . v. A m e r i c a n B a r A s s ' n , 107 F.3d 1026, 1042 (3d C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) . If a p l a i n t i f f presents f a c i a l allegations that suggest "with reasonable p a r t i c u l a r i t y " the possible existence of the requisite " c o n t a c t s between [ t h e p a r t y ] and t h e f o r u m state," Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, N a t ' l A s s ' n v . F a r i n o , 960 F . 2 d 1217, 1223 (3d C i r . 1992), the p l a i n t i f f s r i g h t to conduct jurisdictional discovery should be sustained.' "[Branded]'s demonstration of personal j u r i s d i c t i o n i s a c c u r a t e and s u f f i c i e n t . However, i f t h i s C o u r t r e q u i r e s a d d i t i o n a l c o n t a c t s shown, s u c h d e f i c i e n c y can be f i l l e d w i t h d e t a i l through discovery. This case f o r p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i s b y no m e a n s ' c l e a r l y frivolous.'" On June 29, 2009, the trial order: 10 court entered the following 1090356 "On J u n e 2nd 2009 t h i s court heard arguments on [Universal's] motion to dismiss and [Branded's] m o t i o n t o s t r i k e b r i e f and a f f i d a v i t . [Branded] requested for a continuance o f t h e h e a r i n g and i t was denied. "This court hereby denies [Branded's] motion to strike brief and affidavit and finds that [ U n i v e r s a l ' s ] m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i s w e l l t a k e n and i s hereby granted. "Wherefore, i t i s hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that [Universal's] motion to dismiss is g r a n t e d and U n i v e r s a l T r u c k l o a d S e r v i c e s , I n c . i s hereby dismissed. This case s h a l l proceed against the remaining defendant." On July certifying This appeal 29, 2009, i t s June 29, the trial 2009, court order as entered a final an order judgment. 4 followed. Standards of Review "'"'An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t c o n s i d e r s de n o v o a t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on a p a r t y ' s m o t i o n to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.'" Ex p a r t e L a g r o n e , 839 So. 2 d 6 2 0 , 623 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t i n g E l l i o t t v . Van Kleef, 830 So. 2d 726, 729 (Ala. 2002)). Moreover, " [ t ] h e p l a i n t i f f bears the burden of p r o v i n g the c o u r t ' s p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over the defendant." Daynard v. N e s s , M o t l e y , Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42, 50 (1st C i r . 2002).' The t r i a l c o u r t a l s o noted t h a t Branded's claims a g a i n s t L i d d e l l w e r e s t i l l p e n d i n g a n d t h a t t h e c a s e w o u l d p r o c e e d as to those c l a i m s . 4 11 1090356 "Ex p a r t e D i l l , D i l l , C a r r , S t o n b r a k e r & H u t c h i n g s , P.C., 866 S o . 2 d 5 1 9 , 525 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . "'"In considering a Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n to d i s m i s s f o r want o f p e r s o n a l jurisdiction, a court must c o n s i d e r as t r u e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t n o t c o n t r o v e r t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a f f i d a v i t s , R o b i n s o n v. G i a r m a r c o & Bill, P.C., 74 F . 3 d 253 ( 1 1 t h Cir. 1996), and Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network P r o d u c t i o n s , I n c . , 902 F . 2 d 829 (11th C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) , a n d 'where t h e plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's a f f i d a v i t s conflict, the ... c o u r t m u s t c o n s t r u e a l l reasonable inferences i n favor of the plaintiff.' Robinson, 74 F . 3 d a t 255 ( q u o t i n g Madara v. Hall, 916 F . 2 d 1 5 1 0 , 1514 ( 1 1 t h Cir. 1990))."' "Wenger T r e e S e r v . v . R o y a l T r u c k & E q u i p . , I n c . , 853 S o . 2 d 88 8 , 8 94 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e M c I n n i s , 820 S o . 2 d 7 9 5 , 798 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ) . However, i f t h e d e f e n d a n t makes a p r i m a f a c i e evidentiary s h o w i n g t h a t t h e C o u r t h a s no p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , 'the p l a i n t i f f i s t h e n r e q u i r e d t o s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e jurisdictional allegations i n the complaint by a f f i d a v i t s o r o t h e r c o m p e t e n t p r o o f , a n d he may n o t merely reiterate the f a c t u a l allegations i n the complaint.' Mercantile Capital, LP v. F e d e r a l T r a n s t e l , I n c . , 193 F. S u p p . 2 d 1 2 4 3 , 1247 (N.D. Ala. 2 0 0 2 ) ( c i t i n g F u t u r e T e c h . T o d a y , I n c . v . OSF H e a l t h c a r e S y s . , 218 F . 3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 4 9 (11th C i r . 2000)). See a l s o H a n s e n v . N e u m u e l l e r GmbH, 163 F.R.D. 4 7 1 , 4 7 4 - 7 5 (D. D e l . 1 9 9 5 ) ( ' W h e n a d e f e n d a n t f i l e s a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s p u r s u a n t t o F e d . R. C i v . P. 12(b)(2), and supports that motion with 12 1090356 affidavits, plaintiff i s required to controvert t h o s e a f f i d a v i t s w i t h h i s own affidavits or other competent evidence i n order to s u r v i v e the motion.') (citing Time Share Vacation Club v. Atlantic R e s o r t s , L t d . , 735 F . 2 d 6 1 , 63 (3d C i r . 1 9 8 4 ) ) . " "'"A p h y s i c a l presence i n Alabama i s not a p r e r e q u i s i t e to p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over a nonresident." S i e b e r v. Campbell, 810 So. 2 d 6 4 1 , 644 ( A l a . 2001) . W h a t i s r e q u i r e d , however, i s t h a t the defendant have such c o n t a c t s w i t h Alabama t h a t i t "'should reasonably a n t i c i p a t e being haled into court [ h e r e ] . '" D i l l o n E q u i t i e s v. P a l m e r & Cay, I n c . , 501 So. 2 d 4 5 9 , 462 ( A l a . 1986) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen C o r p . v . W o o d s o n , 444 U.S. 2 8 6 , 2 9 7 , 100 S. C t . 5 5 9 , 62 L. E d . 2 d 490 (1980)). "'Depending on the quality and q u a n t i t y of the contacts, j u r i s d i c t i o n may be e i t h e r g e n e r a l o r s p e c i f i c . L e v e n t h a l v. H a r r e l s o n , 723 So. 2 d 5 6 6 , 569 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . "General jurisdiction applies where a defendant's a c t i v i t i e s i n the forum s t a t e are 'substantial' or 'continuous and systematic,' r e g a r d l e s s of whether those a c t i v i t i e s gave r i s e t o the l a w s u i t A court has specific jurisdiction when a d e f e n d a n t has had few contacts with the forum s t a t e , but those c o n t a c t s gave r i s e to the l a w s u i t . " Id. "'But regardless of whether j u r i s d i c t i o n i s a l l e g e d t o be g e n e r a l or s p e c i f i c , the nexus between the defendant and t h e f o r u m s t a t e must a r i s e out o f "'an action of the defendant [that was] purposefully d i r e c t e d toward the forum S t a t e . ' " E l l i o t t [ v . V a n K l e e f , 830 S o . 2d 13 1090356 7 2 6 , 731 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ] ( q u o t i n g A s a h i M e t a l I n d u s . Co. v. S u p e r i o r C o u r t o f C a l i f o r n i a , 480 U.S. 1 0 2 , 1 1 2 , 107 S. C t . 1 0 2 6 , 94 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1987)). "This purposeful-availment requirement assures t h a t a d e f e n d a n t w i l l n o t be h a l e d i n t o a jurisdiction as a result of '"the u n i l a t e r a l a c t i v i t y of another person or a t h i r d p e r s o n . " ' " E l l i o t t , 830 S o . 2 d a t 731 ( q u o t i n g B u r g e r K i n g Corp. v. R u d z e w i c z , 4 7 1 U.S. 4 6 2 , 4 7 5 , 105 S. C t . 2 1 7 4 , 85 L. E d . 2 d 528 (1985)).' "Dill, Ex parte (Ala. 866 S o . 2 d a t 5 2 5 - 2 6 Covington 2004) Pike (footnote Dodge, (emphasis I n c . , 904 omitted)." So. 2d 226, 229-30 omitted). Discussion Branded argues that Universal's motion to opportunity t o conduct the t r i a l dismiss court without erred first in giving j u r i s d i c t i o n a l discovery. We granting i t the note: "'"The t r i a l c o u r t h a s b r o a d a n d c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c r e t i o n i n c o n t r o l l i n g t h e d i s c o v e r y p r o c e s s and h a s t h e p o w e r t o m a n a g e i t s a f f a i r s ... t o e n s u r e the o r d e r l y and e x p e d i t i o u s d i s p o s i t i o n o f cases."' E x p a r t e V u l c a n M a t e r i a l s C o . , 992 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 2 , 1 2 5 9 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ( q u o t i n g S a l s e r v . K . I . W . I . , S.A., 591 So. 2 d 4 5 4 , 456 ( A l a . 1991)). 'Therefore, this Court w i l l not i n t e r f e r e with a t r i a l court's r u l i n g on a discovery matter unless this Court "'determines, b a s e d on a l l t h e f a c t s that were before the t r i a l court, that the t r i a l court c l e a r l y [exceeded] i t s d i s c r e t i o n . ' " ' I d . ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e H e n r y , 770 S o . 2 d 7 6 , 80 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n E x p a r t e H o r t o n , 711 S o . 2 d 9 7 9 , 983 ( A l a . 1998))." 14 1090356 Brown v . ABUS Kransysteme GmbH, 11 So. 3 d 7 8 8 , 795 (Ala. 2008). In Ex p a r t e this Court entitled Bufkin, addressed 936 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 4 7 - 4 8 the issue to jurisdictional whether a ( A l a . 2006), plaintiff discovery: " I n Ex p a r t e T r o n c a l l i C h r y s l e r P l y m o u t h Dodge, I n c . , [876 So. 2 d 459 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , ] a c a s e i n v o l v i n g discovery on t h e q u e s t i o n of j u r i s d i c t i o n , this Court s a i d : " ' " ' I t i swell established that a c o u r t h a s t h e power t o r e q u i r e a d e f e n d a n t to respond t o d i s c o v e r y requests r e l e v a n t to h i s or h e r motion t o dismiss f o rl a c k o f jurisdiction.'" Andersen v. Sportmart, I n c . , 1 7 9 F.R.D. 2 3 6 , 2 4 1 (N.D. I n d . 1 9 9 8 ) ( q u o t i n g E l l i s v . F o r t u n e S e a s , L t d . , 175 F.R.D. 308, 311 ( S . D . I n d . 1997 ) ) . "However, i t i s a l s o w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a p l a i n t i f f d o e s n o t e n j o y an a u t o m a t i c right to discovery pertaining to personal j u r i s d i c t i o n i n e v e r y c a s e . " I d . " [ T ] o be permitted jurisdictional discovery, [a] p l a i n t i f f must a t l e a s t a l l e g e f a c t s t h a t would support a colorable claim of j u r i s d i c t i o n . " Schenck v. Walt D i s n e y Co., 742 F. S u p p . 8 3 8 , 840 n . 1 ( S . D . N.Y. 1 9 9 0 ) (emphasis a d d e d ) . See a l s o E l l i s v . F o r t u n e S e a s , L t d . , 175 F.R.D. 3 0 8 , 312 ( S . D . I n d . 19 9 7 ) ; Hansen v. Neumueller GmbH, 163 F.R.D. 4 7 1 , 4 7 5 (D. D e l . 1 9 9 5 ) ; D a v a l S t e e l P r o d s . v . M.V. J u r a j D a l m a t i n a c , 718 F. S u p p . 1 5 9 , 162 ( S . D . N.Y. 1 9 8 9 ) ; R i c h v . K I S C a l i f o r n i a , I n c . , 1 2 1 F.R.D. 2 5 4 , 2 5 9 (M.D.N.C. 1 9 8 8 ) . 15 was 1090356 "'A request for jurisdictional d i s c o v e r y m u s t o f f e r t h e c o u r t "more t h a n c o n j e c t u r e and s u r m i s e i n s u p p o r t o f [ t h e ] j u r i s d i c t i o n a l t h e o r y . " C r i s t v. R e p u b l i c of Turkey, 995 F. S u p p . 5, 13 (D.D.C. 1998). "[The] s t a n d a r d i s q u i t e low, b u t a plaintiff's discovery request will n e v e r t h e l e s s be d e n i e d i f i t i s o n l y b a s e d upon 'bare,' ' a t t e n u a t e d , ' o r ' u n s u p p o r t e d ' assertions of personal jurisdiction, or when a p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m a p p e a r s t o be ' c l e a r l y f r i v o l o u s . ' " A n d e r s e n , 179 F.R.D. at 242.' "876 So. 2d a t 467-68. "In T r o n c a l l i , we h e l d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s discovery request presented 'nothing but "conjecture and surmise" regarding the existence of general j u r i s d i c t i o n , ' 876 S o . 2 d a t 4 6 8 , a n d was t h e r e f o r e due t o be denied. Unlike the complaint in T r o n c a l l i , w h i c h was d e v o i d o f a l l e g a t i o n s n e c e s s a r y to s u s t a i n personal j u r i s d i c t i o n , the complaint i n this proceeding alleges that '[Bufkin] was t h e agent, servant or employee of [Williamson] and/or was i n v o l v e d i n a j o i n t v e n t u r e w i t h [Williamson].' Williamson, of course, i s a r e s i d e n t of Alabama. Bufkin admits in his affidavit that he visited Alabama d u r i n g t h e month i n w h i c h the accident occurred, and i t i s u n d i s p u t e d that Bufkin was driving Williamson's truck at the time of the accident. Therefore, i n contrast to the situation presented t h i s Court i n T r o n c a l l i , R o b e r t s has 'at least a l l e g [ e d ] f a c t s that would support a c o l o r a b l e claim of j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' 876 S o . 2 d a t 4 6 8 . Limited d i s c o v e r y c o u l d f l e s h out R o b e r t s ' s a l l e g a t i o n s and c o u l d l e a d to a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the t r i a l court can e x e r c i s e personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over B u f k i n . "The a l l e g a t i o n s b e f o r e us i n t h i s proceeding are d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from those i n T r o n c a l l i , and they j u s t i f y a l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e approach to a l l o w i n g 16 1090356 jurisdictional discovery. We embrace the rule a p p l i c a b l e i n s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e as e x p r e s s e d i n Toys 'R' U s , I n c . v . S t e p Two, S.A., 318 F . 3 d 4 4 6 , 456 (3d C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) : "'Although the p l a i n t i f f bears the burden of demonstrating facts that support personal jurisdiction, Pinker[v. Roche H o l d i n g s L t d . , 292 F . 3 d 3 6 1 , 368 ( 3 r d C i r . 2002)], courts are to a s s i s t the p l a i n t i f f by a l l o w i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d i s c o v e r y u n l e s s the plaintiff's claim i s "clearly f r i v o l o u s . " M a s s a c h u s e t t s S c h o o l o f Law a t A n d o v e r , I n c . v . A m e r i c a n B a r A s s ' n , 10 7 F . 3 d 1 0 2 6 , 1 0 4 2 ( 3 d C i r . 1997 ) . If a p l a i n t i f f presents factual a l l e g a t i o n s that suggest "with reasonable p a r t i c u l a r i t y " the possible existence of the requisite " c o n t a c t s between [the p a r t y ] and t h e forum state," Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, Nat'l A s s ' n v . F a r i n o , 960 F . 2 d 1 2 1 7 , 1 2 2 3 ( 3 d Cir. 1992), the p l a i n t i f f ' s right to c o n d u c t j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d i s c o v e r y s h o u l d be sustained. "'Where t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s made t h i s r e q u i r e d t h r e s h o l d showing, courts w i t h i n t h i s C i r c u i t have s u s t a i n e d t h e r i g h t t o conduct discovery before the d i s t r i c t court dismisses for lack of personal j u r i s d i c t i o n . See, e.g., I n r e A u t o m o t i v e Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation, [No. 1 4 2 6 , J u l y 3 1 , 2 0 0 2 ] ( E . D . P a . J u l y 31, 2002) [ n o t r e p o r t e d i n F. S u p p . 2 d ] (denying motion t o d i s m i s s and p e r m i t t i n g jurisdictional d i s c o v e r y where plaintiff made a " t h r e s h o l d p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g o f personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over Defendants"); W. A f r i c a T r a d i n g & S h i p p i n g Co., e t a l . v. L o n d o n I n t ' l G r o u p , e t a l . , 968 F. S u p p . 996, 1001 (D.N.J. 1997) (denying d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s where t h e 17 1090356 plaintiffs' "request for jurisdictional d i s c o v e r y i s c r i t i c a l to the determination of whether [the court can] exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant."); Centralized Health Systems, Inc. v. Cambridge Medical Instruments, I n c . , [No. 8 9 - 3 3 2 2 , Nov. 8, 1989] (E.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 1989) [not r e p o r t e d i n F.Supp.] ( h o l d i n g motion to d i s m i s s i n abeyance to permit party to take discovery on j u r i s d i c t i o n where d i s t r i b u t i o n arrangement m i g h t s a t i s f y minimum c o n t a c t s ) . ' "Without affording Roberts the opportunity for limited discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction, we will not at t h i s stage of the p r o c e e d i n g g r a n t the w r i t o f mandamus a n d order B u f k i n ' s d i s m i s s a l from the a c t i o n . " Similarly, facts that jurisdiction in this could case, establish against Branded a colorable the following alleged claim sufficient of personal Universal. In i t s response to U n i v e r s a l ' s alleged has facts: motion to dismiss, Branded 5 "1) [Universal] i s a large, p u b l i c l y traded, international company t h a t does b u s i n e s s in a l l l o w e r 48 s t a t e s . [Universal] asserts through the W o r l d W i d e Web on its official website that i t provides 'transportation services to shippers throughout the U n i t e d S t a t e s . ' Universal Truckload S e r v i c e s , Inc., a v a i l a b l e at http://www.goutsi.com/ ( l a s t v i s i t e d May 2 8 , 2 0 0 9 ) . On t h e d a t e t h i s o p i n i o n was r e f e r e n c e d i n p a r a g r a p h s 1 and 2 o f s t i l l available. 5 18 r e l e a s e d t h e Web sites Branded's response were 1090356 "2) One o f [ U n i v e r s a l ] ' s s u b s i d i a r i e s , M a s o n D i x o n L i n e s , a s s e r t s t h r o u g h t h e W o r l d W i d e Web o n i t s website that ' i t has expanded i t s operations from i t s "North and South" beginning t o i n c l u d e 48 states.' The Mason Dixon Lines, available at h t t p : / / w w w . m a d l . c o m / ( l a s t v i s i t e d o n May 2 8 , 2 0 0 9 ) . "3) I n a d d i t i o n t o d o i n g b u s i n e s s i n A l a b a m a , [Universal] acquired the operations o f an A l a b a m a t r u c k l o a d c a r r i e r Noble & P i t t s , Inc. based [ i n ] S c o t t s b o r o , AL i n o r a r o u n d 2006. "4) [Universal] contacted [Branded] and requested that [Branded] find a company to manufacture a t r a i l e r to certain specifications. A f t e r [Branded] p r e s e n t e d [ U n i v e r s a l ] w i t h several options, [Universal] chose L i d d e l l Trailers, LLC ('Liddell') to b u i l d the t r a i l e r s . ( A f f . o f Wayne O s t r a n d e r 5 2, a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a s E x h i b i t A.) "5) L i d d e l l i s a c o m p a n y r e g i s t e r e d i n A l a b a m a with i t s p r i n c i p l e [ s i c ]place of business i n S p r i n g v i l l e , A L . ( E x h i b i t A, O s t r a n d e r A f f . 5 3.) "6) P u r s u a n t t o t h e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n L i d d e l l , [Branded], and [ U n i v e r s a l ] , L i d d e l l agreed t o b u i l d t h e t r a i l e r s i n A l a b a m a . ( E x h i b i t A, O s t r a n d e r A f f . 5 4.) "7) Liddell and [Universal] both informed [Branded] t h a t t h e y would n o t u p h o l d t h e i r e x i s t i n g agreements. [Branded] later learned that [ U n i v e r s a l ] agreed t o purchase and L i d d e l l agreed t o manufacture the trailers, thereby excluding [ B r a n d e d ] . ( E x h i b i t A, O s t r a n d e r A f f . 5 5.) "8) In order to facilitate this later deal, [Universal] h a d t o make contact with Alabama numerous t i m e s . T h e w r o n g d o i n g made t h e b a s i s o f this complaint was therefore projected toward A l a b a m a . ( E x h i b i t A, O s t r a n d e r A f f . 5 6.) 19 1090356 "9) At the completion of the deal between [ U n i v e r s a l ] and L i d d e l l , [ U n i v e r s a l ] t o o k p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e t r a i l e r s i n A l a b a m a . ( E x h i b i t A, Ostrander A f f . 5 7.) "10) [ U n i v e r s a l ] i s a l a r g e company t h a t has s u f f i c i e n t c o n t a c t s w i t h Alabama. N o t o n l y do t h e y conduct regular business i n Alabama, but with respect to this case, they have d i r e c t e d their a c t i o n toward Alabama. "11) The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t s t a t e s i n t h e c a s e Ex p a r t e DBI, Inc. t h a t Alabama's l o n g arm s t a t u t e extends the j u r i s d i c t i o n of Alabama c o u r t s t o t h e p e r m i s s i b l e l i m i t s o f d u e p r o c e s s . [23 S o . 3 d 6 3 5 , 6 4 3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) ] ('In a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f R u l e 4.2, b o t h b e f o r e a n d a f t e r t h e 2 0 0 4 amendment, A l a b a m a ' s l o n g - a r m r u l e c o n s i s t e n t l y has been interpreted by this Court to extend the j u r i s d i c t i o n of Alabama c o u r t s to the p e r m i s s i b l e l i m i t s o f due p r o c e s s . ' ) . "The S u p r e m e C o u r t g o e s on t o s a y t h a t Due Process p e r m i t s Alabama t o s u b j e c t a n o n r e s i d e n t defendant to i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n when t h e r e exists s u f f i c i e n t 'minimum c o n t a c t s , ' s u c h t h a t a d e f e n d a n t should reasonably anticipate being haled into court. [23 So. 3 d a t 6 4 4 ] . "'The Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment p e r m i t s a f o r u m s t a t e t o s u b j e c t a nonresident defendant to i t s courts only when t h a t d e f e n d a n t h a s s u f f i c i e n t "minimum contacts" with the forum state. I n t e r n a t i o n a l S h o e Co. v . W a s h i n g t o n , 32 6 U.S. 3 1 0 , 3 1 6 , 66 S. C t . 1 5 4 , 90 L. E d . 95 ( 1 9 4 5 ) . The c r i t i c a l q u e s t i o n w i t h r e g a r d to the nonresident defendant's contacts i s whether the c o n t a c t s are such that the nonresident defendant "'should reasonably a n t i c i p a t e being haled i n t o court'" i n the forum state. Burger King Corp. v. 20 1090356 R u d z e w i c z , 471 U.S. 462, 473, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. E d . 2 d 528 (1985), quoting W o r l d - W i d e V o l k s w a g e n C o r p . v . W o o d s o n , 44 4 U.S. 2 8 6 , 2 9 5 , 100 S. C t . 5 5 9 , 62 L. E d . 2 d 490 (1980).' "The C o u r t h a s f r a m e d t h i s d i s c u s s i o n as one o f r e a s o n a b l e n e s s and f a i r n e s s ; a s k i n g w h e t h e r i t i s reasonable or f a i r to b r i n g such defendant i n t o court. [23 So. 3 d a t 6 5 0 - 5 1 ] . "'The protection against inconvenient l i t i g a t i o n i s t y p i c a l l y d e s c r i b e d i n terms of "reasonableness" o r " f a i r n e s s . " We h a v e s a i d that the defendant's contacts w i t h the f o r u m S t a t e m u s t be s u c h t h a t m a i n t e n a n c e of the s u i t does not o f f e n d "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the d e f e n d a n t and t h e f o r u m m u s t be s u c h t h a t it is "reasonable ... to require the c o r p o r a t i o n to defend the p a r t i c u l a r s u i t which is brought there." (citations omitted).' "However, due to modern transportation and communication, the 'limits imposed on state j u r i s d i c t i o n b y t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e , i n i t s r o l e as a g u a r a n t o r a g a i n s t i n c o n v e n i e n t l i t i g a t i o n , h a v e been s u b s t a n t i a l l y r e l a x e d . ' [23 So. 3 d a t 6 5 0 ] . " F u r t h e r m o r e , where a d e f e n d a n t has 'purposely availed' himself of the privilege of conducting business in Alabama, i t is presumptively not u n r e a s o n a b l e t o r e q u i r e him t o submit t o the burdens of l i t i g a t i o n i n t h a t forum. [23 So. 3 d a t 6 5 4 ] . "'[W]here the defendant " d e l i b e r a t e l y " has engaged in significant activities w i t h i n a S t a t e , o r has c r e a t e d " c o n t i n u i n g o b l i g a t i o n s " b e t w e e n h i m s e l f and r e s i d e n t s o f t h e f o r u m , he m a n i f e s t l y h a s availed 21 1090356 himself of the privilege of conducting b u s i n e s s t h e r e , and b e c a u s e h i s a c t i v i t i e s are shielded by "the benefits and protections" of the forum's laws i t i s presumptively not unreasonable to r e q u i r e him t o s u b m i t t o the burdens of l i t i g a t i o n in that forum as well. (citations omitted).' " T h e r e f o r e , when t h e d e f e n d a n t has 'purposefully d i r e c t e d ' h i s a c t i o n s toward r e s i d e n t s of Alabama, the d e f e n d a n t must p r e s e n t a c o m p e l l i n g case that some o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n w o u l d r e n d e r j u r i s d i c t i o n unreasonable. [23 So. 3 d a t 6 5 3 - 5 4 ] . ('[W]here a defendant who purposefully has directed his activities at forum residents seeks to defeat j u r i s d i c t i o n , he m u s t p r e s e n t a c o m p e l l i n g c a s e t h a t the presence of some o t h e r considerations would render j u r i s d i c t i o n unreasonable.'). "12) In the present case, [Branded] has presented ample evidence that [Universal] has s u f f i c i e n t contacts w i t h the State of Alabama, and, as a r e s u l t o f [its] actions, [Universal] should r e a s o n a b l y e x p e c t t o be h a l e d i n t o A l a b a m a c o u r t . Furthermore, [Universal] has purposely availed i t s e l f [of] the p r i v i l e g e of c o n d u c t i n g b u s i n e s s i n Alabama. " [ U n i v e r s a l ] i s a l a r g e p u b l i c l y t r a d e d company with stockholders around the country. Through [ i t s ] m a r k e t i n g [on] t h e W o r l d W i d e Web, [Universal] has h e l d i t s e l f o u t as a company c o n d u c t i n g b u s i n e s s i n Alabama. [ U n i v e r s a l ] a g r e e d t o do b u s i n e s s w i t h a company i n Alabama and the current allegations surround [Universal's] contact with a company r e s i d i n g i n Alabama. The wrong a l l e g e d i n this complaint is based on [Universal's] act of contacting Liddell, in Alabama. Furthermore, [ U n i v e r s a l ] w e n t t o A l a b a m a t o p i c k up t h e t r a i l e r s . 22 1090356 "[Universal] has presented no evidence, compelling or otherwise, of the presence of 'some other considerations [that] would render j u r i s d i c t i o n unreasonable.' [23 So. 3 d a t 6 5 4 ] . In fact, [ U n i v e r s a l ] has n o t p r e s e n t e d one shred of evidence or pointed to one fact showing how [ U n i v e r s a l ] w i l l be b u r d e n e d by d e f e n d i n g t h i s c a s e i n Alabama. The only benefit to [Universal] in excluding jurisdiction is to delay justice. [Universal is] already represented by a firm in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Defending this case in A l a b a m a w o u l d be n o t more b u r d e n s o m e t h a n d e f e n d i n g i t i n L o u i s i a n a . As t h e Supreme C o u r t p o i n t s out, modern t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and c o m m u n i c a t i o n has helped t o s u b s t a n t i a l l y r e l a x e d a n y due p r o c e s s r e s t r a i n t s . [23 So. 3 d a t 657]. "13) [ U n i v e r s a l ] h a s no Due P r o c e s s a r g u m e n t f o r excluding personal j u r i s d i c t i o n . [ I t has] c o n d u c t e d business i n Alabama, directed [its] actions to r e s i d e n t s i n A l a b a m a , and [has] h e l d [ i t s e l f ] out t o the public as conducting business in Alabama. Therefore, j u r i s d i c t i o n i s proper i n t h i s case." Further, of i t s Rule i n i t s response to Universal's 12(b)(2) motion, Branded brief in alleged: support 6 "[Universal] contacted [Branded] and requested that [Branded] find a company to manufacture t r a i l e r s t o c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . A f t e r [Branded] presented [Universal] with several options, [ U n i v e r s a l ] c h o s e L i d d e l l T r a i l e r s , LLC ('Liddell') to b u i l d the t r a i l e r s . ( A f f . o f Wayne O s t r a n d e r 5 2, attached h e r e t o a s E x h i b i t A.) Liddell is a On t h e d a t e t h i s o p i n i o n was r e l e a s e d , a l l b u t two o f Web sites referenced in Branded's response were st available. The Web s i t e s t h a t a r e no l o n g e r a v a i l a b l e h t t p : / / w w w . a l a b a m a t r u c k i n g . o r g / d o c s / A T A _ s u m m e r 3 Q 0 6_web.pdf http://loads.goutsi.com8080/wntv5/BKLoadSelections. 6 23 the ill are and 1090356 company r e g i s t e r e d i n A l a b a m a w i t h i t s p r i n c i p l e [ s i c ] p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s i n S p r i n g v i l l e , AL. ( E x h i b i t A, O s t r a n d e r A f f . 5 3.) P u r s u a n t t o t h e a g r e e m e n t between L i d d e l l , [Branded], and [ U n i v e r s a l ] , L i d d e l l agreed t o b u i l d t h e t r a i l e r s i n Alabama. (Exhibit A, O s t r a n d e r A f f . 5 4.) D e f e n d a n t L i d d e l l a g r e e d t o design, m a n u f a c t u r e [ ] , and s e l l s a i d t r a i l e r s t o [Branded] f o r $168,680.00 each (Compl. 5 7 ) , and [ U n i v e r s a l ] a g r e e d t o p u r c h a s e a t l e a s t two o f t h e s e t r a i l e r s a t a p r i c e o f $ 2 4 4 , 4 6 5 . 8 4 . ( C o m p l . 5 8.) L i d d e l l and [ U n i v e r s a l ] b o t h i n f o r m e d [Branded] t h a t they would not uphold t h e i r e x i s t i n g agreements. (Compl.) "[Branded] l a t e r learned that [Universal] agreed to purchase and L i d d e l l agreed t o manufacture t h e t r a i l e r s , thereby excluding [ B r a n d e d ] . ( E x h i b i t A, O s t r a n d e r A f f . 5 5.) In order t o f a c i l i t a t e t h i s later deal, [ U n i v e r s a l ] h a d t o make c o n t a c t with Alabama numerous t i m e s . T h e w r o n g d o i n g made t h e basis of this c o m p l a i n t was t h e r e f o r e projected t o w a r d A l a b a m a . ( E x h i b i t A, O s t r a n d e r A f f . 5 6.) A t the c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e d e a l between [ U n i v e r s a l ] and L i d d e l l , [ U n i v e r s a l ] p h y s i c a l l y entered Alabama and physically took possession of the trailers i n A l a b a m a . ( E x h i b i t A, O s t r a n d e r A f f . 5 7.) "[Universal] i s a large, publicly traded, international company t h a t does b u s i n e s s in a l l l o w e r 48 s t a t e s . [ U n i v e r s a l ] i d e n t i f i e s i t s e l f as a 'non-asset based p r o v i d e r of transportation,' Universal Truckload Services, Inc., available at h t t p : / / w w w . g o u t s i . c o m / ( l a s t v i s i t e d June 17, 2009) ( a t t a c h e d h e r e t o as E x h i b i t B ) , [ U n i v e r s a l ] m a r k e t s i t s s e r v i c e s t o t h e s t a t e o f Alabama and a s s e r t s that i t does business i n Alabama. [Universal] a s s e r t s t h r o u g h t h e W o r l d W i d e Web o n i t s o f f i c i a l website that i t provides 'transportation services to shippers throughout the United States.' E x h i b i t B. [ U n i v e r s a l ] s o l i c i t s agents and c o n t r a c t o r s through the W o r l d W i d e Web, i n c l u d i n g those agents and c o n t r a c t o r s l o c a t e d i n Alabama. U n i v e r s a l Truckload 24 1090356 S e r v i c e s , I n c . , a v a i l a b l e http://www.goutsi.com/JoinUs.aspx (last v i s i t e d 17, 2 0 0 9 ) ( a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a s E x h i b i t C ) . June "At any given time, [Universal] arranges numerous l o a d p i c k u p s f o r l o c a t i o n s t h r o u g h o u t t h e s t a t e o f Alabama. On J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , [Universal] provided information through i t s o f f i c i a l website of load pickup and drop-off locations throughout Alabama. These sites included, among other locations: Jasper, Scottsboro, Tuscaloosa, Courtland, Talladega, Montgomery, Mount Meigs, Louisville, Eufaula, Selma, Jackson, Mobile, Tuscumbia, Belk, Moundville, Grayson, Birmingham, H a n c e v i l l e , Pelham, M i l l b r o o k , H u n t s v i l l e , Decatur, Nauvoo. See f o r example, Universal Truckload S e r v i c e s , I n c . , a v a i l a b l e http://loads.goutsi.com:8080/wntv5/BKLoadSelections ( l a s t v i s i t e d June 11, 2009) ( a t t a c h e d h e r e t o as E x h i b i t D). These l o c a t i o n s p r o v i d e the telephone numbers o f [ U n i v e r s a l ] a g e n t s , many o f whom a r e located i n Alabama. [Universal] boasts on i t s o f f i c i a l website that i t 'provides shippers with a network of hundreds of agents and thousands o f owner-operators.' Universal Truckload Services, I n c , a v a i l a b l e a t http://www.goutsi.com/Shippers.aspx. (last visited June 17, 2009) (attached hereto as E x h i b i t E ) . Therefore, n o t o n l y d o e s [ U n i v e r s a l ] do b u s i n e s s i n Alabama, t h e y have numerous a g e n t s t h r o u g h o u t t h e state. " F u r t h e r m o r e , i n 2006, [ U n i v e r s a l ] r e p or t e d t o Alabama Trucker, t h a t [ U n i v e r s a l ] b o u g h t t. m a j o r a Alabama trucking company l o c a t e d i n Scottsboro, Alabama. Alabama Trucker, 3rd Quarter (2006), a v a i l a b l e a t http://www.alabamatrucking.org/docs/ATA_ summer3Q06_web.pdf ( a t t a c h e d h e r e t o as E x h i b i t F ) . ('Universal Truckload Services o f f i c i a l s said late Thursday i t acquired the operations of Alabama t r u c k l o a d c a r r i e r Noble & P i t t s / ' ) 'Noble & P i t t s 25 1090356 g e n e r a t e d combined t r u c k l o a d and b r o k e r a g e revenue of about $33 m i l l i o n [ i n 2005], including fuel surcharges o f $3 m i l l i o n , Universal said i n statement' Id. "In addition to the fact that [Universal] c o n d u c t s e x t e n s i v e b u s i n e s s i n Alabama and has a broad network o f b u s i n e s s c o n t a c t s i n Alabama, [Universal] also conducts extensive business i n Alabama through i t s s u b s i d i a r i e s . [Universal] acts as a n o n - a s s e t b a s e d p r o v i d e r a n d c o n d u c t s most o f i t s b u s i n e s s t h r o u g h i t s s u b s i d i a r i e s . E x h i b i t E, Universal Truckload Services, Inc., available at http://www.goutsi.com/Shippers.aspx ('We c o n d u c t o u r o p e r a t i o n s through our o p e r a t i n g s u b s i d i a r i e s under t h e b r a n d names: Mason a n d D i x o n L i n e s , Mason D i x o n Intermodal, Economy Transport, Louisiana Transportation, Great American Lines, CrossRoad C a r r i e r s , and U n i v e r s a l Am-Can.'). "Mason D i x o n L i n e s , a s s e r t s t h r o u g h i t s o f f i c i a l w e b s i t e t h a t ' i t has expanded i t s o p e r a t i o n s from its "North and South" beginning to include 48 states.' The M a s o n Dixon Lines, available at h t t p : / / w w w . m a d l . c o m / ( l a s t v i s i t e d o n May 2 8 , 2 0 0 9 ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , Mason D i x o n L i n e s h o l d s a p e r m a n e n t office in Scottsboro, Alabama. Mason Dixon I n t e r m o d a l a s s e r t s t h r o u g h t h e W o r l d W i d e Web t h a t its does business in Alabama. Mason Dixon I n t e r m o d a l , a v a i l a b l e a t http://www.mdintermodal.com/AboutUs.aspx (last v i s i t e d J u n e 17, 2009) ( a t t a c h e d h e r e t o as E x h i b i t G) ( ' O p e r a t i n g w i t h one o f t h e f i n e s t g r o u p s o f Owner-Operators i n t h e c o u n t r y e n a b l e s us t o s e r v i c e 48 states, ... Mason Dixon Intermodal i s a subsidiary of Universal Truckload Services, Inc.'). Likewise, Louisiana Transportation, Inc. boasts t h r o u g h t h e W o r l d W i d e Web o f t h e e x t e n s i v e b u s i n e s s it c o n d u c t s t h r o u g h o u t t h e 48 s t a t e s a n d o f t h e n a t i o n a l s a l e s and r e c r u i t i n g f o r c e i t m a i n t a i n s . Louisiana Transportation, Inc., available at http://www.louisianatransport.com/AboutUs.aspx (last 26 1090356 v i s i t e d June 17, 2 0 0 9 ) ( a t t a c h e d h e r e t o as E x h i b i t H)('Louisiana Transportation, Inc., i s an e s t a b l i s h e d over-the-road commercial c a r r i e r with b r o k e r a g e a u t h o r i t y s e r v i n g 48 s t a t e s w i t h o u r f o c u s on t h e S o u t h e r n p a r t s o f t h e U.S.') a n d ('We h a v e a n established national sales and r e c r u i t i n g force i n t e g r a t e d i n t o an e f f i c i e n t b a c k o f f i c e support network w i t h a p r o p r i e t a r y computer system geared for the f u t u r e . ' ) . "Universal Am-Can, L t d . and Great American L i n e s , Inc. market themselves t o Alabama through t h e W o r l d W i d e Web a n d a l s o a s s e r t t h a t t h e y d o b u s i n e s s i n Alabama. U n i v e r s a l Am-Can, L t d . a s s e r t s t h r o u g h t h e W o r l d W i d e Web, 'Our s e r v i c e s e n c o m p a s s F l a t b e d , Van, Over Dimensional and Logistic solutions t h r o u g h o u t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , Canada, and Mexico. T h e r e a r e no l i m i t s when i t comes t o p r o v i d i n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s o l u t i o n s t o f i t you and o r your customers needs.' U n i v e r s a l Am-Can. L t d , a v a i l a b l e a t h t t p : / / w w w . u a c l . c o m / ( l a s t v i s i t e d June 17, 2009) (attached hereto as Exhibit I ) . Furthermore, Universal Am-Can, L t d . boasts of a 'nationwide network o f agents' ( E x h i b i t I) and s t a t e t h a t they have a ' c a r r i e r n e t w o r k o f o v e r 10,000 approved c a r r i e r s t h r o u g h o u t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and Canada.' Universal Am-Can, L t d ., available at http://www.uacl.com/Services.aspx ( l a s t v i s i t e d June 17, 2 0 0 9 ) ( a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a s E x h i b i t J ) . Finally, Universal Am-Can states that i t has a 'network consisting of over 250 offices nationwide.' Universal Am-Can, Ltd . , available at http://www.uacl.com/Brokerage.aspx (last visited June 17, 2009) ( a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a s E x h i b i t K ) . "Great American Lines, Inc. asserts a nationwide presence and s o l i c i t b u s i n e s s nationwide. They a s s e r t t h r o u g h t h e W o r l d W i d e Web, 'Our d i v e r s i f i e d a g e n t a n d company t e r m i n a l s a l e s f o r c e a r e c a p a b l e of accommodating any h a u l i n g p r e f e r e n c e an owner operator may have within these trailer types t h r o u g h o u t t h e US a n d C a n a d a . ' Great American 27 1090356 L i n e s , I n c . a v a i l a b l e a t , http://www.grtamerlines.com/AboutUs.aspx (last v i s i t e d J u n e 17, 2 0 0 9 ) ( a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a s E x h i b i t L). F i n a l l y , they boast of a 'Freight Brokerage to carrier network throughout the US using agent network.' Great American Lines, Inc, a v a i l a b l e at, http://www.grtamerlines.com/Services.aspx (last v i s i t e d J u n e 17,2009) ( a t t a c h e d h e r e t o as E x h i b i t M). " B r a n d e d w e n t on general contacts Alabama. (Ala. See 2009) with Alabama Tech., Sverdrup to establish Inc. v. corporate "'continuous and offices jurisdiction the s u b s i d i a r i e s ' in in Alabama Alabama). It sufficient Waste C o n t r o l , I n c . Inc., 711 2d court erroneously So. 912, 916 personal indicating a motion had also So. 3d in BFI, Inc., 28 had and general that contacts with i n A l a b a m a and that a summary See Indus., (holding t h a t the where 34 sufficient Browning-Ferris for in argued general I n d u s t r i e s , Inc. jurisdiction that v. ( A l a . 1997) granted f i l e d by B r o w n i n g - F e r r i s evidence 36 contacts are a t t r i b u t a b l e to U n i v e r s a l . Environmental of jurisdiction Robinson, Alabama to e s t a b l i s h p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n lack sufficient systematic'" a c t i v i t i e s to establish U n i v e r s a l ' s s u b s i d i a r i e s had on had (holding that a defendant that d i d business maintained personal to argue t h a t U n i v e r s a l i t s e l f trial judgment ("BFI, I n c . " ) , b a s e d the record sufficient contained contacts 1090356 w i t h A l a b a m a and it was the w h e r e i t was 'foreseeable' "not that BFI, u n r e a s o n a b l e t o assume Inc., c o u l d be conduct of i t s s u b s i d i a r y " ) . F i n a l l y , Universal had establish personal against Universal and Alabama. 957 So. personal sufficient 2d jurisdiction arose from Hiller See 1111 Invs. ( A l a . 2006) jurisdiction a c t i o n arose out Specifically, specific Branded v. with its between Insultech the asserts that claims Group, trial with to Universal Inc., court defendant because the defendant's contacts for Alabama i t says, contacts (holding that over the of the contacts Inc. liable Branded argued because, the held that cause the had of State). that "[t]he wrongful act alleged in this case is [Universal's] act of going behind the back of [Branded] and contacting Liddell, in Alabama. [ U n i v e r s a l ' s ] act of c o n t a c t i n g L i d d e l l i n Alabama was therefore the precise act that harmed [Branded]." Additionally, with sites an of Branded affidavit and from Alabama Trucker, its theories evidence to its jurisdictional from Ostrander, w i t h Universal In t h i s supported printouts i t s s u b s i d i a r i e s , and a trade from the with personal support those an Web article publication. c a s e , B r a n d e d made d e t a i l e d a s s e r t i o n s of arguments jurisdiction, assertions. 29 and See Ex i t regarding presented parte United 1090356 Ins. Cos., plaintiff 936 So. raising jurisdictional a 2d regarding defendants and situation "bare," be surmise. the role was presented Inc., 876 the request request d i d not See U n i t e d So. this r e q u e s t was Ex p a r t e 2d of defendant Therefore, 459, the not a "'based upon of personal claim appeared Troncalli Chrysler 468 ( A l a . 2003). Troncalli, consist mere I n s . Cos., supra. to allegedly was i n Ex p a r t e of a detailed relationship each that entitled or "unsupported" assertions frivolous."'" Dodge, unlike discovery (holding o r a s i t u a t i o n where Branded's "'"clearly Further, corporate conspiracy). "attenuated," Plymouth she where Branded's d i s c o v e r y jurisdiction'" to because the regarding i n the c i v i l ( A l a . 2006) civil-conspiracy claim discovery pleadings played 1049 Branded's conjecture Rather, Branded and has "'at l e a s t alleg[ed] f a c t s that would support a colorable claim of jurisdiction.' [Ex parte T r o n c a l l i C h r y s l e r P l y m o u t h D o d g e , I n c . , ] 876 S o . 2 d [ 4 5 9 , ] 468 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ] . Limited discovery could f l e s h out [Branded's] a l l e g a t i o n s and c o u l d l e a d t o a conclusion that the t r i a l court can exercise personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over [ U n i v e r s a l ] . " Ex p a r t e trial Bufkin, court 936 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 4 7 . exceeded i t s For these discretion 30 when reasons, i t the granted 1090356 Universal's motion t o dismiss without an opportunity t o conduct first providing jurisdictional Branded discovery. Conclusion The trial court exceeded i t s discretion Universal's motion t o dismiss without an opportunity Accordingly, to did n o t have remand conduct this jurisdictional the t r i a l court's Branded discovery. judgment d i s m i s s i n g a g a i n s t U n i v e r s a l on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e c o u r t personal case jurisdiction f o r the t r i a l discovery jurisdiction. i t granted first providing conduct we r e v e r s e Branded's claims when on the over court limited Universal, to allow issue and we Branded to of personal 7 R E V E R S E D AND REMANDED. Cobb, C . J . , and W o o d a l l , Shaw, a n d M a i n , Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, J J . , concur. Because of our d i s p o s i t i o n of this appeal on t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d i s c o v e r y i s s u e , we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e r e m a i n i n g c l a i m s B r a n d e d r a i s e s on a p p e a l . 7 31
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.
