Fish Market Restaurants, Inc. v. Riverfront, LLC
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.
Riverfront, LLC, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Etowah Circuit Court to vacate its order denying Riverfront's motion to enforce a forum-selection clause in a lease agreement between it and Fish Market Restaurants, Inc., and George Sarris (collectively, "Fish Market") and to direct the circuit court either to dismiss the action filed against it by Fish Market or to transfer the action to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. Upon review of the clauses at issue and the Etowah court record, the Supreme Court concluded that Riverfront established it had a clear legal right to the enforcement of the forum-selection clause in the lease because Fish Market failed to establish that enforcement of the clause would be unfair or unreasonable. The circuit court exceeded the scope of its discretion in denying Riverfront's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court directed the Etowah court to either dismiss this case without prejudice, or to transfer to the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court, the forum agreed to in the lease.
Download PDF
Rel: 05/31/2013 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, 2012-2013 1111239 Ex p a r t e R i v e r f r o n t , LLC PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : F i s h Market Restaurants, Inc., and George S a r r i s v. Riverfront, LLC) (Etowah C i r c u i t Court, CV-12-900098) PARKER, Justice. Riverfront, mandamus LLC, p e t i t i o n s directing court") t o vacate t h e Etowah this Court Circuit i t s order denying Court f o r a writ of ("the c i r c u i t Riverfront's motion t o 1111239 enforce a forum-selection it and F i s h Market clause i n a lease Restaurants, agreement between I n c . , and George Sarris ( h e r e i n a f t e r c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as " F i s h M a r k e t " ) a n d t o direct the c i r c u i t against court either to dismiss i t by F i s h Market or t o t r a n s f e r Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t Court. the action the action filed to the We g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n a n d i s s u e t h e writ. F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l Riverfront property"). owns r e a l property located I n l a t e 2006, R i v e r f r o n t into negotiations sought t o lease History i n Gadsden ("the and F i s h M a r k e t e n t e r e d concerning the property, which F i s h Market from R i v e r f r o n t . In negotiating t h e terms o f the lease, the l e a s e p r o v i d e d t o i t d a t e d J a n u a r y 8, 2007 ("the p r o p o s e d lease"). F i s h M a r k e t made h a n d w r i t t e n c h a n g e s t o a c o p y o f Section "Jurisdiction 3.3.1 a n d Venue," of the proposed lease, entitled stated: " R e g a r d l e s s o f any p l a c e t o w h i c h any o f t h e p a r t i e s may move a n d m a i n t a i n l e g a l d o m i c i l e o r s u i t s a t any time, each agrees, t o t h e f u l l e x t e n t p e r m i t t e d by law, t h a t any a c t i o n a g a i n s t them b a s e d on t h i s L e a s e o r any document o r i n s t r u m e n t d e l i v e r e d i n a c c o r d a n c e h e r e w i t h s h a l l be i n s t i t u t e d i n the C i r c u i t C o u r t o f T u s c a l o o s a County, Alabama, and, t o the full e x t e n t p e r m i t t e d by law, each party i r r e v o c a b l y consents t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f such c o u r t a n d w a i v e s any a n d a l l j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e n s e s 2 1111239 t h a t e a c h may have t o a c t i o n i n such c o u r t . " The proposed lease contains throughs to t h i s s e c t i o n . p r o v i s i o n was handwritten i n t o the word the institution The i n i t s place. C o u r t o f any action any A the the handwritten 1.11. above inserted following changes, the the above reads, i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , s h a l l be handwritten instituted changes The to i n the Sections as Circuit proposed However, t h e p r o p o s e d l e a s e was representative lease ... strike- p r o p e r " were w o r d " i n " was p r o p e r County, i n Alabama." contained 1.10.1, and by t h e words "any Also, p r o v i s i o n of the proposed l e a s e f o l l o w s : "any an word " T u s c a l o o s a " of the above p r o v i s i o n o f t h e p r o p o s e d l e a s e With such h a n d w r i t t e n a d d i t i o n s and s t r u c k t h r o u g h , and "County." also of lease 1.1, not 1.2, signed of R i v e r f r o n t . dated January admitted i n t o evidence. The 18, 2007 ("the l e a s e " ) , was also l e a s e i s s i g n e d by S a n j a y S i n g h , as p r e s i d e n t o f R i v e r f r o n t ; by S a r r i s , as p r e s i d e n t o f F i s h M a r k e t ; and by R o b e r t J . Hayes, S a r r i s ' s attorney. Each The signature 1 State notary on t h e signature certified lease: is as both i n d i v i d u a l l y notarized. follows The desired concerning Sarris's 1 " I , the u n d e r s i g n e d , a N o t a r y P u b l i c of the and C o u n t y a f o r e s a i d , h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t 3 and 1111239 handwritten not c h a n g e s t o t h e p r o p o s e d l e a s e b y F i s h M a r k e t were incorporated "Jurisdiction into Section a n d Venue." 3.3.1 o f t h e l e a s e , entitled That s e c t i o n i n the lease reads: " R e g a r d l e s s o f any p l a c e t o w h i c h any o f t h e p a r t i e s may move a n d m a i n t a i n l e g a l d o m i c i l e o r s u i t s a t any time, each agrees, t o t h e f u l l e x t e n t p e r m i t t e d by l a w , t h a t any a c t i o n a g a i n s t them b a s e d on t h i s L e a s e o r any document o r i n s t r u m e n t d e l i v e r e d i n accordance herewith s h a l l be i n s t i t u t e d i n the C i r c u i t C o u r t o f T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , and, t o the full extent permitted by law, each party i r r e v o c a b l y consents t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of such c o u r t a n d w a i v e s any a n d a l l j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e n s e s t h a t e a c h may have t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f s u c h an a c t i o n i n such c o u r t . " (We will clause.") refer to Section 3.3.1 as "the forum-selection The l e a s e d i d i n c o r p o r a t e t h e h a n d w r i t t e n changes made b y F i s h M a r k e t t o S e c t i o n s 1.2 a n d 1.11 o f t h e p r o p o s e d lease. the f o l l o w i n g c l a u s e : The l e a s e a l s o c o n t a i n s "Section 3.13 E n t i r e A g r e e m e n t . T h i s Lease c o n s t i t u t e s t h e e n t i r e u n d e r s t a n d i n g and agreement among t h e p a r t i e s c o n c e r n i n g the indemnification G e o r g e S a r r i s , i n d i v i d u a l l y a n d as P r e s i d e n t o f t h e F i s h M a r k e t R e s t [ a ] u r a n t s [ , ] I n c . , and R o b e r t J . Hayes, i n d i v i d u a l l y i s signed to the foregoing i n s t r u m e n t a n d who a r e known t o me, a c k n o w l e d g e d b e f o r e me on t h i s d a y t h a t , b e i n g i n f o r m e d o f t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e f o r e g o i n g i n s t r u m e n t , h e , as s u c h o f f i c e r a n d w i t h f u l l a u t h o r i t y , e x e c u t e d t h e same v o l u n t a r i l y on t h e d a y t h e same b e a r s d a t e f o r a n d as an a c t o f s a i d c o r p o r a t i o n . " (Emphasis a d d e d ; c a p i t a l i z a t i o n 4 omitted.) 1111239 o b l i g a t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s and r e l a t e d matters d i s c u s s e d h e r e i n , and s u p e r s e d e s any and a l l p r i o r n e g o t i a t i o n s , u n d e r s t a n d i n g s or agreements i n r e g a r d thereto." On February 27, 2012, judgment a c t i o n a g a i n s t its initial noted that pleading, "the F i s h Market filed declaratorycourt. In F i s h Market i d e n t i f i e d the p r o p e r t y and land R i v e r f r o n t i n the a and premises and circuit items of l o c a t e d t h e r e i n a r e t h e b a s i s o f some o f t h e i s s u e s F i s h Market a l s o r e q u e s t e d t h a t the circuit property involved." court " e n t e r an [ o ] r d e r i d e n t i f y i n g t h e r i g h t s , d u t i e s and o b l i g a t i o n s of the p a r t i e s , under t h a t c e r t a i n l e a s e a g r e e m e n t e n t e r e d i n t o b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s on o r a b o u t t h e 8 t h o f J a n u a r y 2007 w h i l e t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l l o f t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s met and f a c e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e t e r m s o f t h e l e a s e by [ F i s h Market]." I n r e s p o n s e , on M a r c h 26, to dismiss the 2012, R i v e r f r o n t f i l e d a motion declaratory-judgment action on the basis of i m p r o p e r venue o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t o t r a n s f e r t h e c a s e t o the T u s c a l o o s a C i r c u i t C o u r t , pursuant to the clause. In i t s motion, s e l e c t i o n clause l e a s e be did not filed file Riverfront r e q u i r e d t h a t any i n the a written alleged forum-selection that 5 forum- l a w s u i t a r i s i n g under Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t Court. response. the the F i s h Market 1111239 The c i r c u i t on May 1, 2012. evidence, lease. the court held a hearing At the hearing, and S a r r i s c o n f i r m e d t h e l e a s e was a d m i t t e d t h a t i t was h i s s i g n a t u r e and t h a t h i s s i g n a t u r e h a d been n o t a r i z e d , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e l e a s e was n o t " t h e document S a r r i s a l s o agreed w i t h h i s attorney's had never lease] into "had any opportunity a t any t i m e . " evidence. opposing Market R i v e r f r o n t ' s motion [he] on Sarris signed." statement that S a r r i s whatsoever The p r o p o s e d Fish into t h a t h i s s i g n a t u r e was on t h e E v e n t h o u g h he c o n f i r m e d lease on R i v e r f r o n t ' s m o t i o n lease presented to dismiss to look was no also oral at [the admitted argument or t o t r a n s f e r the a c t i o n on t h e b a s i s t h a t venue i n t h e Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t was improper. On May 14, 2012, t h e c i r c u i t motion without s t a t i n g i t s reasoning then f i l e d t h i s p e t i t i o n court denied Riverfront's f o r doing so. Riverfront f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. Standard of Review I n Ex p a r t e CTB, I n c . , 782 So. 2d 188, 190 we n o t e d t h a t f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n the "'proper method ( A l a . 2000), c l a u s e s i m p l i c a t e venue and t h a t for obtaining review m o t i o n f o r a change o f venue i n a c i v i l 6 of a d e n i a l of a action i s to p e t i t i o n 1111239 for Ins. Bad t h e w r i t o f mandamus.'" (Quoting Ex p a r t e N a t i o n a l S e c . Co., 727 So. 2d 788, 789 ( A l a . 1998) .) Toys H o l d i n g s , ("[A]lthough Inc., See a l s o Ex p a r t e 958 So. 2d 852, 857 n.3 ( A l a . 2006) v e n u e may s o m e t i m e s be a p p r o p r i a t e i n multiple f o r u m s , p a r t i e s may, v i a a f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e , c o n t r a c t i n advance to restrict reviewing the t r i a l venue to a single court's forum."). Thus, i n d e n i a l of a party's attempt t o e n f o r c e an " o u t b o u n d " f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e i n Ex p a r t e CTB, 2 t h i s Court a p p l i e d our w e l l s e t t l e d p r i n c i p l e s f o r c o n s i d e r i n g a petition f o r a w r i t o f mandamus: "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 where t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t in the p e t i t i o n e r t o the order sought; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , 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 remedy; a n d (4) 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 of the court." 782 So. 2d a t 190 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e I n t e g o n 497, 499 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ) . C o r p . , 672 So. 2d F u r t h e r , a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on t h e question of e n f o r c i n g a forum-selection clause i s reviewed t o "An ' o u t b o u n d ' f o r u m s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e i s one p r o v i d i n g for t r i a l o u t s i d e o f A l a b a m a , w h i l e an ' i n b o u n d ' clause p r o v i d e s f o r t r i a l i n s i d e Alabama." P r o f e s s i o n a l Ins. Corp. v. S u t h e r l a n d , 700 So. 2d 347, 348 n.1 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . I n t h e i n s t a n t case, R i v e r f r o n t seeks t o d i s m i s s o r t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n on t h e b a s i s o f an i n b o u n d f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e , w h i c h d e s i g n a t e s t h e p a r t i e s ' c h o s e n venue as T u s c a l o o s a County. 2 7 1111239 determine whether forum-selection discretion. 372 i n enforcing clause the Ex p a r t e D.M. or r e f u s i n g to enforce trial court White Constr. exceeded the its Co., 806 So. 2d 370, ( A l a . 2001). Discussion In i t s p e t i t i o n , R i v e r f r o n t argues t h a t the c i r c u i t exceeded its forum-selection discretion by refusing to enforce court the c l a u s e and b y d e n y i n g R i v e r f r o n t ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t o t r a n s f e r t h i s a c t i o n on t h e basis that venue Specifically, i n t h e Etowah C i r c u i t Riverfront c l a u s e s h o u l d be e n f o r c e d the argues because, that C o u r t was the improper. forum-selection i t argues, enforcement of c l a u s e i s n o t u n f a i r i n t h a t t h e l e a s e was n o t " a f f e c t e d by f r a u d , undue i n f l u e n c e , o r o v e r w e e n i n g b a r g a i n i n g and i t i s not unreasonable because, power," R i v e r f r o n t argues, the s e l e c t e d f o r u m w o u l d n o t be " s e r i o u s l y i n c o n v e n i e n t " f o r the parties. 700 So. See P r o f e s s i o n a l I n s . C o r p . v. S u t h e r l a n d , 2d 347, 352 ( A l a . 1997). "[A] ... f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e i s e n f o r c e a b l e u n l e s s t h e c h a l l e n g i n g p a r t y can e s t a b l i s h t h a t e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e c l a u s e w o u l d be u n f a i r on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t '"[w]as a f f e c t e d by f r a u d , undue i n f l u e n c e , o r o v e r w e e n i n g b a r g a i n i n g power o r ... e n f o r c e m e n t w o u l d be u n r e a s o n a b l e on t h e b a s i s 8 1111239 that the [selected] forum would be seriously i n c o n v e n i e n t . " ' The b u r d e n on t h e c h a l l e n g i n g p a r t y i s d i f f i c u l t t o meet. Ex p a r t e CTB,[ I n c . , 782 So. 2d 188 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ] . See a l s o P r o f e s s i o n a l I n s . C o r p . v. S u t h e r l a n d , 700 So. 2d 347, 351 ( A l a . 1997)." D.M. W h i t e , 806 So. 2d a t 372. R i v e r f r o n t s t a t e s t h a t F i s h Market "do[es] not appear t o a l l e g e t h a t enforcement of the f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n unfair due bargaining disagree that to fraud, power." with Fish undue Market forum-selection influence, In i t s response, Riverfront's i s not c l a u s e w o u l d be Fish or overweening Market does not c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of i t s argument a l l e g i n g that enforcement of the c l a u s e w o u l d be u n f a i r on t h e b a s i s o f f r a u d , undue i n f l u e n c e , o r o v e r w e e n i n g b a r g a i n i n g power. Instead, F i s h M a r k e t a p p e a r s t o be a t t a c k i n g t h e f o r m a t i o n of the lease itself. not meeting F i s h Market of question." upon Ray 1014 the minds argues that between the "[t]here was parties to I n s u p p o r t o f i t s argument, v. A l a b a m a C e n t r a l Credit the a lease F i s h Market Union, 472 So. clear relies 2d ( A l a . 1985), i n which t h i s Court s t a t e d : "The C o u r t a d d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e o f what c o n s t i t u t e s an a c c o r d and s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h e c a s e o f C r a f t v. S t a n d a r d A c c . I n s . Co., 220 A l a . 6, 123 So. 271 (1929), s t a t i n g : 9 in 1012, 1111239 "'The d i s c h a r g e o f c l a i m s by way of a c c o r d and s a t i s f a c t i o n i s d e p e n d e n t upon c o n t r a c t e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d ; and i t f o l l o w s t h a t the e s s e n t i a l s n e c e s s a r y to valid c o n t r a c t s g e n e r a l l y must be p r e s e n t i n a contract of accord and satisfaction. Therefore there must be (1) a proper subject-matter, (2) c o m p e t e n t p a r t i e s , (3) an a s s e n t o r m e e t i n g o f t h e m i n d s o f t h e p a r t i e s , and (4) a c o n s i d e r a t i o n . 1 R.C.L. 17 8, § 3; R e l i a n c e L i f e I n s . Co. v. G a r t h , 192 A l a . 91, 68 So. 871 [ ( 1 9 1 5 ) ] ; D r e y f u s B r o s . v. C o r n P r o d u c t s Co., 204 A l a . 593, 86 So. 386 [ ( 1 9 2 0 ) ] . [ E m p h a s i s a d d e d . ] ' "220 (Initial A l a . a t 9, 123 emphasis involve an as a Square, L.L.C. 1091, 1098 agreements are contract and v. meaning of This under our Winn-Dixie 2003) contracts construction a lease 273." case, satisfaction, contract (Ala. at added.) accord treated So. however, a but does which precedent. Montgomery, ("It and is that apply in lease, well the Inc., general The only So. that p r i n c i p l e s of the scope authority no meeting of lease a u t h o r i t y concerning between the parties accord and I n Ex p a r t e G r a n t , 711 Court held that "'[t]he So. 2d 464, 465 r e q u i s i t e elements 10 the clear satisfaction. an to and relied F i s h M a r k e t f o r i t s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e r e was minds 2d lease upon by the is Bowdoin 873 settled ascertaining agreement."). See not ( A l a . 1997), of [a is this contract] 1111239 i n c l u d e : an o f f e r and an a c c e p t a n c e , c o n s i d e r a t i o n , and m u t u a l assent t o terms e s s e n t i a l t o the formation of a contract.' S t r e n g t h v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f F i n a n c e , D i v . o f R i s k Mgmt., 62 2 So. 2d 1283, 1289 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; S t e i g e r v. H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Bd. o f E d . , 653 So. 2d 975, 978 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . " must be m a n i f e s t e d b y s o m e t h i n g . by a s i g n a t u r e . " Southern Further, "[a]ssent Ordinarily, i t i s manifested Energy Homes, I n c . v. H e n n i s , 776 So. 2d 105, 108 ( A l a . 2000) ( c i t i n g C o m m e r c i a l C r e d i t C o r p . v. Leggett, 744 So. 2d 890, 895-96 ( A l a . 1999); Premiere C h e v r o l e t , I n c . v. H e a d r i c k , 748 So. 2d 891, 893 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ; and Crown (Ala. P o n t i a c , I n c . v. M c C a r r e l l , 1997)). contract, at The elements issue an here, accord germane 695 So. 2d 615, to the formation are d i f f e r e n t and than satisfaction. the 618 of a elements germane to Therefore, Fish Market's argument under a c c o r d - a n d - s a t i s f a c t i o n p r e c e d e n t i s not p e r s u a s i v e . Moreover, the l e a s e , which placed elements Market into evidence; set forth directs Riverfront and F i s h Riverfront i n Grant, this i s s i g n e d by a l l p a r t i e s , Court's Market supra. thereby satisfied the The o n l y e v i d e n c e Fish attention to indicating d i d not mutually 11 was assent that to the 1111239 terms e s s e n t i a l t o the f o r m a t i o n of the l e a s e i s the s e l f - s e r v i n g testimony of Sarris: " [ F i s h M a r k e t ' s c o u n s e l : ] Okay. D i d r e c e i v e any s i g n e d c o p y f r o m ... S i n g h -"[Sarris:] you ever No. " [ F i s h Market's "[Sarris:] following counsel:] of t h i s lease? No. " [ F i s h M a r k e t ' s c o u n s e l : ] D i d you e v e r r e c e i v e an o r i g i n a l c o p y o f a l e a s e -"[Sarris:] Never. " [ F i s h Market's "[Sarris:] c o u n s e l : ] -- from ... Singh? Never. " [ F i s h M a r k e t ' s c o u n s e l : ] D i d he e v e r t e l l a n y t h i n g a b o u t g i v i n g you an o r i g i n a l c o p y ? you " [ S a r r i s : ] Yeah. He s a y , you know, i t was -- you know we have t o s t a r t a l l o u r t h i n g s and a r c h i t e c t s and a l l t h a t . He s a i d j u s t t a k e my w o r d , you know, j u s t t r u s t me, I ' l l s e n d i t t o y o u . " On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , S a r r i s a d m i t t e d t h a t h i s s i g n a t u r e was on the l e a s e and t h a t h i s s i g n a t u r e on the l e a s e had been n o t a r i z e d , b u t he p e r s i s t e d t h a t " t h a t ' s n o t a -- t h e document [he] s i g n e d . " F u r t h e r , the n o t a r y ' s c e r t i f i c a t i o n of S a r r i s ' s s i g n a t u r e on t h e l e a s e s t a t e s : State " I , the undersigned, a Notary P u b l i c of the and C o u n t y a f o r e s a i d , h e r e b y c e r t i f y that 12 1111239 G e o r g e S a r r i s , i n d i v i d u a l l y and as P r e s i d e n t o f t h e F i s h Market R e s t [ a ] u r a n t s [ , ] I n c . , and R o b e r t J . Hayes, i n d i v i d u a l l y i s signed t o the foregoing i n s t r u m e n t and who a r e known t o me, a c k n o w l e d g e d b e f o r e me on t h i s d a y t h a t , b e i n g i n f o r m e d o f t h e contents of the foregoing instrument, he, as s u c h o f f i c e r and w i t h f u l l a u t h o r i t y , e x e c u t e d t h e same v o l u n t a r i l y on t h e day t h e same b e a r s d a t e f o r and as an a c t o f s a i d c o r p o r a t i o n . " (Emphasis a d d e d ; c a p i t a l i z a t i o n o m i t t e d . ) directed this Court's F i s h Market has n o t a t t e n t i o n t o any a u t h o r i t y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e s e l f - s e r v i n g t e s t i m o n y o f an u n d i s p u t e d s i g n a t o r y t o a contract s t a t i n g simply copy o f t h e c o n t r a c t mutually t h a t he n e v e r r e c e i v e d demonstrates that an o r i g i n a l the p a r t i e s had not a s s e n t e d t o t h e terms o f t h e c o n t r a c t . Riverfront demonstrate that then argues that F i s h Market the forum-selection clause has f a i l e d to i s unreasonable b e c a u s e F i s h M a r k e t d i d n o t p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e o r argument i n the c i r c u i t court c o n c e r n i n g whether the Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t C o u r t w o u l d be a " s e r i o u s l y i n c o n v e n i e n t " forum. "'In order t o demonstrate t h a t t h e chosen forum i s s e r i o u s l y i n c o n v e n i e n t , t h e p a r t y c h a l l e n g i n g t h e c l a u s e must show t h a t a t r i a l i n t h a t f o r u m w o u l d be s o g r a v e l y difficult and inconvenient that the challenging party would e f f e c t i v e l y be d e p r i v e d o f h i s d a y i n c o u r t . Ex p a r t e N o r t h e r n C a p i t a l R e s . C o r p . , 751 So. 2d [12] a t 15 [ ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ] . 13 1111239 "'"When an agreement includes a clearly stated forum-selection clause, a party claiming that clause is unreasonable and therefore i n v a l i d w i l l be r e q u i r e d t o make a clear showing of unreasonableness. In determining whether such a clause is unreasonable, a court should c o n s i d e r t h e s e f i v e f a c t o r s : (1) Are the p a r t i e s b u s i n e s s e n t i t i e s or b u s i n e s s p e r s o n s ? (2) What i s the subject matter of the contract? (3) Does t h e c h o s e n forum have any inherent advantages? (4) Should the parties have been able to understand t h e a g r e e m e n t as i t was written? ( 5) Have extraordinary facts arisen since t h e a g r e e m e n t was e n t e r e d t h a t would make the chosen forum s e r i o u s l y i n c o n v e n i e n t ? We s t a t e t h e s e i t e m s n o t as r e q u i r e m e n t s , but merely as factors that, considered together, should i n a particular case give a clear indication whether the chosen forum i s r e a s o n a b l e . " "'Ex p a r t e N o r t h e r n C a p i t a l Res. C o r p . , 751 So. 2d a t 14.' "Ex p a r t e 2003) ." Ex parte Rymer, Soprema, 860 So. 2d 339, 342-43 ( A l a . I n c . , 949 So. 2d 907, 913 ( A l a . 2006) . R i v e r f r o n t argues t h a t each o f t h e f i v e f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e N o r t h e r n C a p i t a l R e s o u r c e C o r p . , 751 So. 2d 12, 14 14 1111239 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , a r e met i n t h i s case. I t argues i n i t s p e t i t i o n that "(1) t h e p a r t i e s a r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d b u s i n e s s e n t i t i e s and F i s h M a r k e t was represented throughout by A t t o r n e y H a y e s , a l i c e n s e d A l a b a m a a t t o r n e y who i s a l s o a s i g n a t o r y on t h e L e a s e ; (2) t h e subject m a t t e r of the c o n t r a c t i s a commercial l e a s e between s o p h i s t i c a t e d , e x p e r i e n c e d p a r t i e s ; (3) T u s c a l o o s a County, the chosen forum, i s advantageous i n t h a t Riverfront's p r i n c i p l e [sic] business o f f i c e i s i n T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , i t i s a p r o p e r venue u n d e r t h e Alabama venue statutes (Ala. Code [1975,] § 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ) and i t i s c o n v e n i e n t t o a l l o f t h e parties; (4) the parties, particularly given Attorney Hayes's p a r t i c i p a t i o n , were c a p a b l e of understanding the terms of the forum-selection c l a u s e to the p o i n t of s u g g e s t i n g r e v i s i o n s to the c l a u s e t h a t were u l t i m a t e l y r e j e c t e d ; and (5) no f a c t s have a r i s e n t h a t w o u l d r e n d e r Tuscaloosa County a s e r i o u s l y i n c o n v e n i e n t venue." F i s h M a r k e t has not presented R i v e r f r o n t ' s argument. We conclude that enforcement of the any basis that influence, or enforcement selected Fish any the [lease] overweening be [the to agree w i t h R i v e r f r o n t . Market, the clause, argument b e f o r e [forum-selection] would forum argument i n o p p o s i t i o n forum-selection e v i d e n c e below or enforcement of the the We any party f a i l e d to this bargaining Tuscaloosa 15 Court present "'that c l a u s e w o u l d be u n f a i r on " ' [ w ] a s a f f e c t e d by unreasonable opposing on fraud, undue ... [that] power or the basis Circuit Court] that the would be 1111239 seriously inconvenient.'"'" (quoting other D.M. White, 806 So. 2d at cases). F i s h Market next argues t h a t because, i t says, the selection clause situated, attempts from having the case i n v o l v i n g a d i s p u t e except for against 372 one ... to " a l l courts, power t o h e a r and the I t has been of any F i s h Market forum-selection long wherever dispose b e t w e e n R i v e r f r o n t and court," public policy. oust forum- clause established is that f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e s are not a g a i n s t Alabama p u b l i c p o l i c y , and the specific public-policy Sutherland, 341 Co. reasoning argument supra; ( A l a . 2003) see asserted has (same). September Court 28, F i s h Market in i t s rejected. See also been parte Rymer, 860 a l s o Ex ( r e l y i n g upon S u t h e r l a n d ) ; v. C o n t i n e n t a l Machs., I n c . , 738 1999) by Further, 2012] i n Ex So. So. parte 3d and 2d 844, Spencer, , So. 2d O ' B r i e n Eng'g 846-47 ( A l a . [Ms. 1110319, ( A l a . 2012), noted: " I t i s a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e of Alabama l a w t h a t ' [ p ] a r t i e s a r e f r e e t o c o n t r a c t as t h e y will, provided they c o n t r a c t w i t h i n the law.' P e r k i n s v. S k a t e s , 220 A l a . 216, 218, 124 So. 514, 515 ( 1 9 2 9 ) . F o r u m - s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e s are not a g a i n s t p u b l i c p o l i c y i n A l a b a m a , and p a r t i e s a r e f r e e t o c o n t r a c t u a l l y agree t o a s p e c i f i e d forum i n which a l l l i t i g a t i o n i s t o be l i t i g a t e d . See Brown v. 16 339, this 1111239 A l a b a m a Chem. Co., 207 A l a . 215, 216, 92 So. 260, 260-61 ( 1 9 2 2 ) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f forumselection clauses)." Lastly, entitled Fish Market to relief Riverfront complaint was r e q u i r e d Riverfront's transfer [b]ill argues t h a t , within action under on a motion complaint. in states court A l a . R. C i v . P., court's Market's denial of that venue i n t h e E t o w a h F i s h Market f i l e d i n the c i r c u i t j u d g m e n t on J u l y 2, 2012, b a s e d to f i l e on J u l y of Riverfront's i n i t s reply Riverfront's [j]udgment." an answer t o F i s h Market's R i v e r f r o n t f i l e d a motion t o stay the proceedings the c i r c u i t disposition an or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , to on t h e b a s i s failure i s not to file an answer t o F i s h to dismiss f o ra default Riverfront's Rule 12(a), of the c i r c u i t C i r c u i t C o u r t was i m p r o p e r . court "Riverfront f o r [d]eclaratory to f i l e 10 days motion this that as t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s f a i l e d answer t o F i s h M a r k e t ' s F i s h Market argues motion brief to 3, 2012, p e n d i n g this mandamus p e t i t i o n . that stay; the c i r c u i t however, Court's Riverfront court granted the parties have p r e s e n t e d no a t t a c h m e n t s i n d i c a t i n g w h e t h e r t h e c i r c u i t court g r a n t e d e i t h e r F i s h M a r k e t ' s m o t i o n f o r a d e f a u l t judgment o r Riverfront's motion for a 17 stay of the proceedings. 1111239 R e g a r d l e s s , F i s h Market has n o t argued t h a t t h e case has been a d j u d i c a t e d b e l o w a n d h a s d i r e c t e d t h i s C o u r t t o no a u t h o r i t y , other then Procedure, general citations t o t h e Alabama R u l e s s u p p o r t i n g i t s argument. c o n s i d e r t h e argument. of Civil T h e r e f o r e , we w i l l n o t See R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; see a l s o U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h A l a b a m a v. P r o g r e s s i v e I n s . Co., 904 So. 2d 1242, 1247-48 ( A l a . 2004). Conclusion Riverfront has e s t a b l i s h e d r i g h t t o the enforcement lease because Fish i t has a c l e a r legal of the forum-selection clause i n the Market has enforcement o f t h e c l a u s e would The c o u r t exceeded circuit that failed to establish be u n f a i r t h e scope that or unreasonable. of i t s discretion i n denying R i v e r f r o n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , to transfer t h e case t o the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court. We d i r e c t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e i t h e r t o d i s m i s s t h i s cause, w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., o r t o t r a n s f e r t h e cause t o t h e T u s c a l o o s a C i r c u i t C o u r t , t h e forum agreed t o i n the l e a s e . PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Stuart, Shaw, a n d B r y a n , J J . , concur. Murdock, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t . 18 1111239 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e (concurring i n the r e s u l t ) . I concur i n i s s u i n g I respectfully note d e c l i n e , however, 2 and t h e accompanying whether the clause selection or So. 3 d a t an o f mandamus i n t h i s to join case opinion as t o i s an " ' " o u t b o u n d " forum "'"inbound" . case. the discussion i n t e x t o f t h e main i n this clause'" clause.'" have the writ [forum selection] These a p p e a r t o be t e r m s that a p p l i c a t i o n t o c l a u s e s g o v e r n i n g t h e c h o i c e o f venue i n c a s e s where a c h o i c e must be made b e t w e e n not between Professional fora within a single state. I n s . Corp. v. S u t h e r l a n d , different states, See g e n e r a l l y , e . g . , 700 So. 2 d 3 4 7 , 349 ( A l a . 1997) ( u p h o l d i n g e n f o r c e a b i l i t y o f an " o u t b o u n d " forum- s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e p r o v i d i n g f o r d i s p u t e s between t h e p a r t i e s t o be " c o n d u c t e d i n D u v a l C o u n t y , F l o r i d a " ) ; E x p a r t e D.M. W h i t e Constr. Co., 806 So. 2d 370, 371 enforceability providing of a "'outbound' f o r d i s p u t e s between ( A l a . 2001) forum-selection (upholding clause" t h e p a r t i e s t o be i n s t i t u t e d " i n t h e c o u r t s o f H a m i l t o n County, Tennessee"); and High L i f e Sales Co. v . Brown-Forman C o r p . , 823 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. 1992) ( a f f i r m i n g t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s an a c t i o n in order designated t o allow i t t o be r e f i l e d in agreement). the 19 i n Kentucky, The question t h e forum of the 1111239 enforceability of different policy case such clauses concerns than ( i n v o l v i n g a simple in such cases are p r e s e n t e d triggers i n the present forum-selection clause that w i l l be a p p l i e d t o govern the c h o i c e between c o u n t i e s i n Alabama, each of which, presumably, the Ala. a c t i o n , see Code i s an otherwise Sutherland, 1975, § 6-3-1, 700 to So. a p p r o p r i a t e venue f o r 2d permit a t 351 (interpreting p a r t i e s to "agree[] to r e s t r i c t a c t i o n t o a p a r t i c u l a r forum t h a t i s a u t h o r i z e d under t h e venue In statutes")). any event, I do not find i t necessary in this p a r t i c u l a r c a s e t o a d d r e s s t h e s t a n d a r d by w h i c h a c o u r t must decide whether to nature presented enforce here. a forum-selection Instead, only question presented in this the Fish position taken George S a r r i s Market") by t h a t the minds between the opinion to this points c a s e i s t h e one Market the that t o me of the presented Restaurants, Inc., by and ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " F i s h forum-selection 2007, c o n t r a c t was As i t appears clause not clause i n the January a f u n c t i o n o f "a c l e a r m e e t i n g o f 18, the parties." meeting-of-the-minds out that c o n c e r n e d o n l y w i t h an Fish Market " a c c o r d and 20 argument, relies the upon satisfaction," a namely main case Ray 1111239 v. A l a b a m a C e n t r a l C r e d i t U n i o n , 472 So. 2d 1012 The main o p i n i o n c o r r e c t l y notes that ( A l a . 1985) . the p r e s e n t case does n o t i n v o l v e an a c c o r d and s a t i s f a c t i o n , b u t I do n o t r e a d F i s h Market's argument as contending otherwise. s a t i s f a c t i o n i s i n f a c t a type of c o n t r a c t , me that Fish Market just accord-and-satisfaction happens case i n an elements of a c o n t r a c t u a l agreement. to c i t e Ex p a r t e G r a n t , 711 proposition that contract]"'" one of So. effort So. and quoted to from document an the The m a i n o p i n i o n goes on ( A l a . 1997), f o r the r e q u i s i t e elements a s s e n t t o terms formation of a c o n t r a c t , " ' " accord and i t a p p e a r s t o have 2d 464 "'"[t]he i s "'"mutual to An 3d a t of e s s e n t i a l to [a the , an e l e m e n t I see as no d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e " a s s e n t o r m e e t i n g o f t h e minds of the p a r t i e s " element Alabama C e n t r a l Credit quoted Union, by 472 Fish Market from So.2d a t 1014. Ray v. In other w o r d s , a t l e a s t i n s o f a r as t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e i s concerned, I cannot elements germane different than to the agree w i t h the the main o p i n i o n f o r m a t i o n of elements 21 germane a to that contract an "[t]he ... are accord and 1111239 satisfaction." satisfaction So. i s but 3d at . a form of a Because the main o p i n i o n germane t o t h e f o r m a t i o n contract. of a c o n t r a c t and "[t]he elements are d i f f e r e n t than satisfaction," So. accord- a n d - s a t i s f a c t i o n precedent . I find persuasive its accord , i t f i n d s F i s h M a r k e t ' s argument u t i l i z i n g 3d a t Fish "not Market's and ... an 3 concludes that t h e e l e m e n t s germane t o an a c c o r d has Again, persuasive." position f o r a d i f f e r e n t reason, in So. this namely, t h a t 3d case Fish at not Market f a i l e d t o demonstrate t h a t i t d i d not o b j e c t i v e l y m a n i f e s t agreement opinion the aptly points something. least to provision out, in question. "'[a]ssent must be O r d i n a r i l y , i t i s manifested i n regard to a written contract. (quoting S o u t h e r n E n e r g y Homes, I n c . 105, (Ala. 2000))(emphasis omitted). 108 v. As the main manifested by a s i g n a t u r e , ' " So. Hennis, 3d 776 As t h e m a i n by at at So. 2d opinion On a r e l a t e d n o t e , I do n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e r e f e r e n c e s i n the main o p i n i o n s u g g e s t i n g t h a t a " l e a s e " i s not a c t u a l l y a c o n t r a c t b u t m e r e l y " i s t r e a t e d as a c o n t r a c t u n d e r our precedent." So. 3d a t (emphasis added). In p o i n t of f a c t , a l t h o u g h i t i s t r u e t h a t a l e a s e does c r e a t e an i n t e r e s t i n l a n d , a l e a s e i s a c o n t r a c t , as n o t e d by t h e c a s e a l s o cited i n the main opinion, Bowdoin Square, L.L.C. v. W i n n - D i x i e Montgomery, I n c . , 873 So. 2d 1091, 1098 ( A l a . 2003) (noting that "lease agreements are contracts" (emphasis added)). 3 22 1111239 subsequently explains, "[t]he only evidence Fish d i r e c t s t h i s Court's a t t e n t i o n to i n d i c a t i n g that Market Riverfront and F i s h M a r k e t d i d n o t m u t u a l l y a s s e n t t o t h e t e r m s e s s e n t i a l t o t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e l e a s e " d a t e d J a n u a r y 18, 2007, 3d at , i s the testimony of Sarris i n which So. he focuses p r i m a r i l y on t h e f a c t t h a t he n e v e r r e c e i v e d an o r i g i n a l of the lease. statement directed that in contract copy o f the this the In this main Court's ... respect, opinion of contract fully agree with the that "Fish Market has not an s t a t i n g simply that the I a t t e n t i o n t o any testimony he demonstrates authority indicating undisputed never signatory received that an a original So. not 3d . I b e l i e v e the foregoing to to t h e p a r t i e s had m u t u a l l y a s s e n t e d t o the terms of the c o n t r a c t . " at copy decide disagreement latter this case, i s s u f f i c i e n t a n a l y s i s upon w h i c h and I express no agreement or w i t h any p o r t i o n o f t h e a n a l y s i s t h a t f o l l o w s t h e statement i n the main opinion. 23
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.
