Whited v. Wright Brothers Construction Company, 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.
Wright Brothers Construction Company, Inc. and GIBCO Construction petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacate its order that denied their motion to transfer their case to another circuit court. In 2008, Rogers Whited was involved in a two-vehicle accident at a quarry located in Jefferson County. Both Whited and the driver of the other vehicle were employed by GIBCO, who, along with Wright Brothers, was engaged in a project at the quarry. In 2010 Whited filed a complaint against Wright Brothers, GIBCO, and Sharon Gilbert, the owner and president of GIBCO, in the Walker Circuit Court seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by the accident. In May 2010 Wright Brothers moved to transfer the action to Jefferson County, stating that Whited alleged in his complaint that he was a resident of Blount County, that the accident occurred in Jefferson County, and that therefore Jefferson County, not Walker County, was the proper venue for Whited's action. In June, Whited filed his response in opposition to Wright Brothers' motion, stating that he was a resident of Walker County, not Blount County. Contemporaneously with that response in opposition, Whited also filed an amendment to his complaint stating that his statement that he was a resident of Blount County was a "clerical error." Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the proper venue for this case was Jefferson County, and that the trial court had "an imperative duty to transfer the case and refused to do so." Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted Wright Brothers' petition and issued the writ.
Download PDF
REL 01/13/2012 N o t i c e : This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 1100937 Ex p a r t e W r i g h t B r o t h e r s C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, I n c . , and GIBCO C o n s t r u c t i o n , L.L.C. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Roger W h i t e d v. Wright Brothers C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, (Walker C i r c u i t MALONE, C h i e f Wright Brothers"), Court, Inc., et a l . ) CV-10-900117) Justice. Brothers a n d GIBCO Construction Construction, Company, L.L.C. I n c . ("Wright ("GIBCO"), both 1100937 Tennessee mandamus order corporations, directing denying to the grant the their motion petition Factual In 2008 accident at Jefferson vehicle and were Brothers, issue Both engaged Whited filed Sharon Gilbert, Walker Circuit a l l e g e d l y c a u s e d by moved t o t r a n s f e r t h e alleged in that therefore the proper venue underlying to t r a n s f e r the of its action action. Procedural was involved in a northeast of Birmingham by and the We who, project a at against and the of the with quarry. Brothers, president accident. two-vehicle along Wright damages History driver GIBCO, seeking of for I n May Wright GIBCO, personal 2010 other In GIBCO, Wright in in 2010 and the injuries Brothers a c t i o n to J e f f e r s o n County, s t a t i n g t h a t his B l o u n t County, t h a t the and vacate and owner the writ writ. in Court to t r a n s f e r the Whited a complaint the Court a located employed was for the Whited quarry County. Court C o u r t and Background Roger a to this Circuit Walker Jefferson Circuit the Whited petition complaint accident Jefferson that occurred County, f o r Whited's action. 2 he not was a resident in Jefferson Walker of County, County, was 1100937 On J u n e 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 , W h i t e d f i l e d h i s response i n opposition to Wright B r o t h e r s ' motion, s t a t i n g Walker County, not Blount County. response i n opposition, that he was a r e s i d e n t Contemporaneously with Whited also filed of that a n amendment t o h i s c o m p l a i n t s t a t i n g t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t t h a t he was a r e s i d e n t o f Blount his C o u n t y was a " c l e r i c a l response that error." "Wright Brothers a g e n t ] i n Walker County, Alabama in major highway construction Whited d i d not a l l e g e that in Walker proper County as t o them which s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t or parties have been and has r e c e n t l y been projects that pursuant part, in engaged Walker County." o r GIBCO e v e r d i d b u s i n e s s venue to Rule joined, alleged i n r e g u l a r l y does b u s i n e s s [ b y Gilbert but argued Whited also 82(c), that County A l a . R. may be b r o u g h t could properly was C i v . P., "[w]here s e v e r a l the suit c o u n t y i n w h i c h a n y one o f t h e c l a i m s i n Walker claims i n any have been brought." The Wright day a f t e r Brothers supplement Whited filed to i t s motion Whited's response. Brothers stated that In filed a h i s response document f o r a change that i n opposition, i t referred o f venue supplement and to as a and r e p l y t o reply, Wright i t once d i d b u s i n e s s i n W a l k e r County b u t 3 1100937 that i t h a d n o t done b u s i n e s s Wright for Brothers Whited's venue argued, a c t i o n because corporate testified that business i n Walker In August 2010 W r i g h t Wright raised i s Brothers o f Penny West, that affidavit, n o t have operations this business i n filed a second supplement a t an i n t e r v e n i n g h e a r i n g a with County whose In t h e second Wright Brothers Wright Brothers action and Wright also noted that 4 Rock principal supplement, i s separate and share t h a t WCRP i s n o t a i t had Brothers on t h e alleged that Walker corporation County. stated that i n 1999. West c a r r y on f r o m WCRP a n d t h a t t h e t w o c o r p o r a t i o n s m e r e l y to Wright a registered a n d h a s n o t done affiliated i s i n Walker some o f f i c e r s . party determining Wright At that hearing, Whited apparently Brothers distinct does Brothers I n c . ("WCRP"), location In for venue 2005. questions Brothers Products, time o f an a c t i o n . County, since venue i s s u e . Therefore, i n Walker County, does n o t r e g u l a r l y County Wright the proper Brothers Walker address 2005. C o u n t y was n o t a p r o p e r secretary. Wright agent o r o f f i c e to since t o i t s s u p p l e m e n t an a f f i d a v i t Brothers' any Walker i s t h e commencement attached there ceased attached business t o i t s second 1100937 supplement that a second Wright affidavit i n which she t e s t i f i e d separate and distinct t h a t f i l i n g s w i t h the Alabama S e c r e t a r y of State Brothers corporations, o f West a n d WCRP were i n d i c a t e d t h a t WCRP h a d n o t b e e n " a c t i v e " s i n c e a t l e a s t 1 9 9 9 , a n d t h a t WCRP h a d no r o l e i n t h e q u a r r y the accident affidavit site, to this was a p r i n t o u t dated report giving rise August 2, from action. i n August transfer Wright the Secretary 2010, showing 2010 GIBCO and a r e p l y t o Whited's B r o t h e r s ' motion filed testified an that or office After April that filed t o West's of State's the last Web annual to transfer. affidavit GIBCO had never GIBCO's motions on A p r i l i n Walker Gilbert motion, County. GIBCO GIBCO i n which any business she o r h a d an County. a second 7, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l done i n opposition to In that 1 o f Sharon i n Walker holding a "renewed" motion t o response s t a t e d t h a t G I B C O d i d n o t do b u s i n e s s agent Attached f i l e d b y WCRP was f i l e d i n 1 9 9 9 . Also also p r o j e c t on t h e s i t e o f hearing court on t h e v e n u e q u e s t i o n denied 8, 2 0 1 1 . Wright The t r i a l on B r o t h e r s ' and court's order I t a p p e a r s t h a t GIBCO's A u g u s t 2010 m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r was t h e f i r s t s u c h m o t i o n i t f i l e d ; i t d i d n o t j o i n i n W r i g h t B r o t h e r s ' May 2 0 1 0 m o t i o n . 1 5 1100937 stated in its entirety: "Defendants' Motion to Transfer i s h e r e b y DENIED." Wright Brothers a n d GIBCO f i l e d their joint a w r i t o f mandamus on May 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 ; t h i s and briefs from 2011, the t r i a l Order Of A p r i l the parties order court 8, entered 2011," the one-sentence A p r i l of findings of fact, which, according order that i t was order petition court answer June 28, "Corrected entering the based that conclusion of State. this Court arguments that appeared J u n e 28 o r d e r . 2 one " f a l s e corporate Whited the next pages none o f u s , was s u g g e s t e d b y on t h e t r i a l as compared w i t h Secretary conclusions, the a f f i d a v i t s the second with court's comprised three a t any e a r l i e r p o i n t i n t h i s to strike finding of t h e a f f i d a v i t s Alabama 8, 2 0 1 1 , o r d e r a n a l y s i s , and l e g a l purported Wright Brothers, the entitled to the materials before Whited or the t r i a l The 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 . On an o r d e r stating ordered p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The " c o r r e c t i o n " to The on J u n e Court petition for filed action. proffered by on i t s f a c e . " court's analysis filings with the h i s answer to the d a y , i n c o r p o r a t i n g many o f f o r the f i r s t time i n the t r i a l On J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 1 1 , W r i g h t B r o t h e r s and We r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e f i l i n g o f a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d o e s n o t d i v e s t t h e t r i a l c o u r t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n o r 2 6 1100937 GIBCO f i l e d arguments Whited's a reply brief with raised i n the t r i a l that parties applies transfer. presents Court court's addressing corrected t h e new order and i n answer. Standard The this disagree to the t r i a l Wright Brothers only an issue on of Review the proper court's denial standard of of the motions to a n d GIBCO a r g u e t h a t t h e i r of s t a t u t o r y review interpretation, petition making s t a y t h e c a s e . E x p a r t e D e n s o n , 57 S o . 3 d 1 9 5 , 197 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) ("The f i l i n g o f a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus a g a i n s t a t r i a l j u d g e does n o t d i v e s t t h e t r i a l c o u r t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , s t a y t h e case, o r t o l l t h e r u n n i n g o f any p e r i o d f o r o b e y i n g an o r d e r i n perfecting a filing i n t h e c a s e . " ) The t r i a l c o u r t ' s June 28, 2011, o r d e r i s not properly before this Court. We a r e c a l l e d on t o r e v i e w t h e d e c i s i o n c h a l l e n g e d b y t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n . " [ T ] h i s Court i s bound by t h e r e c o r d , and i t c a n n o t c o n s i d e r a s t a t e m e n t o r e v i d e n c e i n a p a r t y ' s b r i e f t h a t was n o t b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " Ex p a r t e Pike Fabrication, I n c . , 8 5 9 So. 2d a t 1 0 8 9 , 1091 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . L i k e w i s e , t h e new a r g u m e n t s i n W h i t e d ' s a n s w e r , apparently never presented t o the t r i a l court, that p a r a l l e l that order l i k e w i s e c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d b y t h i s C o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r W r i g h t B r o t h e r s a n d GIBCO's p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s d u e t o b e g r a n t e d . O t h e r w i s e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t and W h i t e d w o u l d be p e r m i t t e d t o " s a n d b a g " W r i g h t B r o t h e r s ' a n d GIBCO's a r g u m e n t s . C f . E x p a r t e P i k e F a b r i c a t i o n , 859 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 9 3 ("We b e l i e v e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f P i k e ' s m o t i o n f o r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e w h i l e r e s e r v i n g f o r an u n l i m i t e d time the r i g h t to r e v i s i t the issue e f f e c t i v e l y traps Pike i n an i m p r o p e r v e n u e . " ) ; F o g a r t y v . S o u t h w o r t h , 953 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 5 , 1232 n.3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ( n o t i n g t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f " s a n d b a g " a s "'to conceal one's true position ... i n o r d e r to take advantage'" of an opponent (quoting Merriam-Webster's C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y 1100 ( 1 1 t h e d . 2 0 0 3 ) ) . 7 1100937 this Court's standard of review de novo. the question on w h i c h the motions the time action -- i s a m i x e d "The motion for R.R., a o f mandamus." o f mandamus of venue p r e s e n t s parte 1987)), Ex Ex of a denial of a action i s to petition Ex p a r t e Alabama This Court court to ordering court's "'a c l e a r America a trial Great d e n i a l of a motion showing of e r r o r , ' " Corp., o r when t h e t r i a l ADT fact. Southern will court Sec. Servs., parte Integon 507 2d has exceeded I n c . , 933 Corp., So. 672 So. 2d So. 2d an f o r a change Ex p a r t e 458 , Pike (quoting 4 60 ( A l a . i t s discretion. 3 4 3 , 344 ( A l a . 4 97 , 499 ( A l a . 1995). Discussion "'Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y w h e r e t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r legal 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) a n imperative duty upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t to perform, 8 issue transfer I n c . , 859 S o . 2 d 1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 1 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) Finance parte 200 6 ) ; o f law and (Ala. 2000). 788 S o . 2 d 8 8 6 , 888 Fabrication, -¬ i n Walker County at method f o r o b t a i n i n g r e v i e w a c t i o n when t h e t r i a l Ex question f o r a change o f venue i n a c i v i l writ that o f t h e a c c i d e n t o r a t t h e commencement o f t h i s proper the writ argues t o t r a n s f e r was d e c i d e d w h e t h e r W r i g h t B r o t h e r s was d o i n g b u s i n e s s either Whited 1100937 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 a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d (4) 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 I n t e g o n C o r p . , 672 S o . 2 d 4 97 , 4 99 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . Moreover, our r e v i e w i s l i m i t e d t o t h o s e f a c t s t h a t were before the t r i a l c o u r t . Ex p a r t e N a t i o n a l S e c . I n s . Co., 727 S o . 2 d 7 8 8 , 7 8 9 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . "'The b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g i m p r o p e r v e n u e i s on t h e party raising the issue Ex p a r t e Finance A m e r i c a C o r p . , 507 S o . 2 d 4 5 8 , 460 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . In a d d i t i o n , t h i s Court i s bound by t h e r e c o r d , and i t cannot consider a statement or evidence i n a party's b r i e f t h a t was n o t b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Ex p a r t e A m e r i c a n R e s . I n s . C o . , 663 S o . 2 d 9 3 2 , 936 ( A l a . 19 9 5 ) . " Ex parte Brothers Walker Pike Fabrication, a n d GIBCO made County that 859 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 9 1 . a prima f a c i e showing was i m p r o p e r , t h e b u r d e n to rebut showing. Ex p a r t e 2d Movie I f Wright that then s h i f t e d Gallery, venue i n t o Whited I n c . , 31 S o . 1 0 4 , 109 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) . Once v e n u e h a s b e e n shown t o be i m p r o p e r , t r a n s f e r o f t h e action (Ala. an i s mandatory. 1982). action Rule Ex p a r t e 82(d)(1), on t i m e l y m o t i o n action to filed the court filed 413 So. 2d 1 1 0 5 , 1106 A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s : i s commenced l a y i n g v e n u e court, properly Parker, i n t h e wrong o f any d e f e n d a n t , i n which shall the action county, the transfer the might and t h e case s h a l l p r o c e e d as though therein." (Emphasis added.) 9 "When have been originally 1100937 The parties governs the provides, agree question in pertinent that of Ala. venue Code in this case. § 6-3-7(a), That statute part: "(a) A l l c i v i l a c t i o n s a g a i n s t b r o u g h t i n any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g be 1975, corporations counties: may "(1) In the county in which a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of the events or o m i s s i o n s g i v i n g r i s e to the c l a i m occurred, or a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of r e a l p r o p e r t y t h a t i s the s u b j e c t of the a c t i o n i s s i t u a t e d ; or "(2) In t h e c o u n t y o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ' 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 ; or "(3) In the county i n which the p l a i n t i f f r e s i d e d , or i f the p l a i n t i f f i s an e n t i t y o t h e r t h a n an i n d i v i d u a l , where 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 , at the time of the a c c r u a l of the cause of a c t i o n , i f such corporation does b u s i n e s s by agent 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 ; or " ( 4 ) I f s u b d i v i s i o n s ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , o r (3) do n o t a p p l y , i n any c o u n t y i n w h i c h t h e c o r p o r a t i o n was d o i n g b u s i n e s s b y a g e n t a t the time of the a c c r u a l of the cause of action." The action parties occurred principal parties agree that in Jefferson office agree that i n Alabama Whited the event County i s not resides 10 giving rise and t h a t W r i g h t i n Walker i n Walker to Brothers' County. County this and The that § 1100937 6-3-7(a)(3) would operate t o e s t a b l i s h if Wright Brothers Wright showing at the time business an had the burden stating f o r service alleging, evidence, that Wright corporation Walker County. Wright Brothers 2005 a n d t h a t without Brothers produced filed his County. proffering any was a f f i l i a t e d to that another entities. place of i t s Whited supporting with WCRP, a n of business i n unverified affidavit that Wright Brothers corporate County i t d i d n o t have i n Walker i t s principal In response stating distinct since with facie t h a t W r i g h t B r o t h e r s h a d n o t done of process by and i n Walker presented the a f f i d a v i t i n Walker County secretary a prima Wright Brothers County county. or at the time Whited countered Alabama of making i t d i d n o t do b u s i n e s s b y a g e n t secretary agent i n that of the accident complaint. corporate does b u s i n e s s by agent Brothers that venue i n Walker allegation, of i t s corporate a n d WCRP w e r e s e p a r a t e Whited made no a t t e m p t t o p r e s e n t a n y e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y , a l t h o u g h i t was W h i t e d ' s burden t o do s o . Even apparently assuming, as W h i t e d d i d i n issuing B r o t h e r s was a f f i l i a t e d d i d and as i t s corrected the t r i a l order, that court Wright w i t h WCRP, W h i t e d c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y , 11 1100937 and in we a r e a w a r e o f n o n e , r e n d e r i n g which business any a f f i l i a t e when that venue p r o p e r i n any county o f a named affiliate corporate i s n o t made defendant a defendant does to the a c t i o n and i s n o t a l l e g e d t o have c o n t r i b u t e d i n any manner t o the cited events support giving rise only corporation the to the action. the proposition i s sued subsidiary that, and venue i s sued, Cases when i s proper venue can a l s o a by Whited subsidiary of a i n the county be p r o p e r where as t o t h e s u b s i d i a r y ' s p a r e n t company i f , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e s u b s i d i a r y i s t h e means b y w h i c h t h e p r i n c i p a l county i n which Hosp., Inc., some other venue i s able i s asserted, purpose i n the county proper, 384, (Ala. 1990). but The with, Wright affidavits comport w i t h data the materials i n the Retreat or there i s by t h e s u b s i d i a r y Ex p a r t e that Beard, 556 S o . 2 d H e r e , W h i t e d made no s u c h allegation a l l e g e d m e r e l y t h a t WCRP was a s u b s i d i a r y o f , o r affiliated and Charter (Ala. 1989), served makes v e n u e 385-86 Ex p a r t e 538 S o . 2 d 7 8 7 , 7 8 9 - 9 0 corporate t o do b u s i n e s s otherwise Brothers. of Wright provided Brothers' by t h e Alabama accompanying t h i s secretary Secretary of State, petition to doubt t h e v e r a c i t y of t h e c o r p o r a t e 12 corporate provide secretary's no r e a s o n affidavits. 1100937 Whited failed to submit any e v i d e n c e failed t o meet h i s e v i d e n t i a r y i n rebuttal burden. and The m a t e r i a l s us c a n s u p p o r t o n l y t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t , p u r s u a n t 7(a)(1), and venue proper therefore trial we for this i s improper i n Jefferson County. The present a clear showing of error court i n denying the motions therefore pretermit raised action thereby before t o § 6-3- i n Walker materials County before us on t h e p a r t o f t h e f o r a change o f venue, and discussion of the remaining issues by t h e p a r t i e s . Conclusion Because venue J e f f e r s o n County GIBCO have Because is a transfer and n o t i n Walker clear i n this mandatory, f o r the underlying legal case the the case remedy i s a w r i t trial County, right transfer to court had Circuit a n d r e f u s e d t o do s o . o f mandamus. the p e t i t i o n Court the an Wright and i s s u e to vacate 13 of t h i s order they and Rule imperative seek. 82(d)(1) duty The o n l y p r o p e r Court. to legal have Accordingly, directing 2011 and June in B r o t h e r s and B r o t h e r s a n d GIBCO the writ i t s April i s proper Wright u n d e r § 6-3-7 properly invoked the j u r i s d i c t i o n we g r a n t action the Walker 2011 orders 1100937 denying Jefferson the transfer Circuit and transfer this Court. P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT Stuart, to ISSUED. P a r k e r , and Wise, Shaw, J . , c o n c u r s J J . , concur. i n the result. 14 action to the
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.
