Ex parte Stephanie Nettles. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: Stephanie Nettles v. Arnold White)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:10/23/2009 Notice: T h i s 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 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, 2009-2010 1071340 Ex p a r t e S t e p h a n i e N e t t l e s PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF C I V I L APPEALS (In r e : Stephanie N e t t l e s v. A r n o l d White) (Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t , Court o f C i v i l Appeals, BOLIN, CV-06-3040; 2061038) Justice. The p e t i t i o n f o rthewrit of c e r t i o r a r i i s quashed. 1071340 In Court quashing the petition does language, Appeals' 2d 155 not wish reasons, opinion. t o be f o r the writ understood or statements of c e r t i o r a r i , as a p p r o v i n g of law i n the Court this a l l the of C i v i l H o r s l e y v . H o r s l e y , 2 9 1 A l a . 7 8 2 , 280 S o . (1973). WRIT QUASHED. Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Smith, Parker, concur. Cobb, C . J . , and Murdock, J . , dissent. 2 a n d Shaw, J J . , 1071340 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e I respectfully certiorari. grounds review that dissent The p e t i t i o n forcertiorari I dissenting from so d o i n g write having before quashing the us p u r p o r t e d This writ of to provide two separately Court initially granted grounds, of those quashing I take t h i s from review. as t o t h e second writ. for (dissenting). but today quashes t o e x p l a i n my the writ reasons as t o "ground t w o , " and i n o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x p l a i n b r i e f l y my concurred for i n the denial of c e r t i o r a r i reason review as t o "ground one." Ground One U n d e r § 6 - 5 - 3 0 0 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , i t d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o me that an Stephanie superior to allege that to the complaint Nettles, claim. the petitioner, was at Therefore, trial with by the employer proof I do n o t a g r e e t h e o p i n i o n by t h e Court go t o t r i a l necessary f o r to assert her respondeat of C i v i l on a r e s p o n d e a t 3 of plaintiff and negligence w i t h the premise Appeals a m e n d m e n t t o t h e c o m p l a i n t was n e c e s s a r y to even S e c t i o n 6-5-300 e x p r e s s l y a l l o w s a negligent performance allegation employee. of amendment support by an o f much that a timely i n order superior theory. for Nettles I believe 1071340 this was the essence of N e t t l e s ' s her p e t i t i o n for a writ Nonetheless, d i d not s t a t e the proper interpretation Neither d i d the p e t i t i o n that opinion, opinion, and any A l a . R. App. an i s s u e or ground review, a Court. of § with prior an appropriate case opinion See of that court So. 2d 1152 P. I dissent from or this g e n e r a l l y R u l e 3 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C ) and P. upon decision and to 6-5-300. quotation which with Two this which Court I granted agreed, was certiorari a c o n f l i c t between the d e c i s i o n by the C o u r t of C i v i l this one. i m p r e s s i o n as application Ground The of f i r s t of s t a t e a c o n f l i c t between the Court of C o u r t a p p l y i n g § 6-5-300. (D), one I c o n c u r r e d t o deny r e v i e w as t o g r o u n d petition Appeals' i n ground of c e r t i o r a r i to t h i s The Civil assertions this Court's decision ( A l a . 2007). from the See Rule Court's i n Ex Appeals i n p a r t e Bowman, 39(a)(1)(D), decision possible today A l a . R. to quash 98 6 App. the writ. In her following petition passage from to this the Court, opinion Appeals: 4 of Nettles the quotes Court of the Civil 1071340 "As t h e A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s n o t e d , '"[u]ndue d e l a y i n f i l i n g a n amendment [ t o a c o m p l a i n t ] , when it could have been filed earlier based on t h e information available or discoverable, i s i n i t s e l f g r o u n d f o r d e n y i n g an amendment."' R e c t o r v . B e t t e r H o u s e s , I n c . , 820 S o . 2 d 7 5 , 78 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o t i n g P u c k e t t , Taul & Underwood, I n c . v. S c h r e i b e r Corp., 551 S o . 2 d 9 7 9 , 984 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . I n t h e c a s e now before u s , t h e Alabama Uniform T r a f f i c Accident Report regarding t h e D e c e m b e r 1, 2 0 0 4 , collision i n d i c a t e s t h a t , w i t h i n a f e w d a y s o f t h e D e c e m b e r 1, 2 0 0 4 , c o l l i s i o n , t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t J a c k s o n was d r i v i n g W h i t e ' s v e h i c l e when t h e c o l l i s i o n occurred was a v a i l a b l e t o N e t t l e s . Despite the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h i n a f e w d a y s o f D e c e m b e r 1, 2004, N e t t l e s d i d n o t f i l e h e r amended complaint u n t i l F e b r u a r y 15, 2007. We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h i s was an u n d u e d e l a y . See P r i o r v . C a n c e r S u r g e r y o f M o b i l e , P.C., 959 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 2 , 1097 n . 2 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c o n c l u d i n g i n d i c t a t h a t t h e f i l i n g o f an amended c o m p l a i n t 11 m o n t h s a f t e r t h e p l a i n t i f f h a d l e a r n e d of t h e f a c t s upon w h i c h she based t h e amended c o m p l a i n t c o n s t i t u t e d an undue d e l a y ) . " Nettles v. White, (Ala. Civ. prejudice case. [Ms. 2 0 6 1 0 3 8 , A p r i l App. 2008). i s necessary She q u o t e s Nettles and t h a t i n Ex p a r t e decision of the Court Bowman, passage supra, of C i v i l argues that So. 3d a showing of from this as c o n f l i c t i n g Court's with the Appeals: "We now t u r n t o w h e t h e r t h e 11-month delay b e t w e e n t h e t i m e t h e H e a r d s l e a r n e d t h a t Bowman was i n v o l v e d i n p u r c h a s i n g t h e APV t a n k a n d t h e t i m e t h e H e a r d s a m e n d e d t h e i r c o m p l a i n t t o s u b s t i t u t e Bowman i s a b a s i s f o r mandamus r e l i e f . This Court has recognized that delay i n amending a complaint to 5 , n o n e was made i n t h e p r e s e n t the following decision 4, 2 0 0 8 ] 1071340 s u b s t i t u t e a named p a r t y f o r a f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t y once i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e c a n d e f e a t t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of the d o c t r i n e of r e l a t i o n back. See Denney v . S e r i o , 446 S o . 2 d 7, 11 ( A l a . 1 984) ('Although t h i s Court has r e f u s e d to apply the relation-back p r i n c i p l e to inordinate delays from the time of knowledge o f t h e f i c t i t i o u s p a r t y ' s t r u e identity u n t i l actual s u b s t i t u t i o n of the f i c t i t i o u s p a r t y ' s t r u e name -- s e e W a l d e n v . M i n e r a l E q u i p m e n t Co., 406 S o . 2 d 385 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ( t h r e e - y e a r delay too l o n g ) ; S h i r l e y v . G e t t y O i l C o . , 367 S o . 2 d 1 3 8 8 (Ala. 1 9 7 9 ) ( 1 7 - m o n t h d e l a y t o o l o n g ) -- D r . S e r i o p r o f f e r e d no e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t Denney's d i l a t o r y s u b s t i t u t i o n i n f a c t p r e j u d i c e d h i m . See g e n e r a l l y E x p a r t e T i d m o r e , 418 S o . 2 d 866 ( A l a . 1982)(two-year delay in substituting proper d e f e n d a n t t o o l o n g where p a r t y s o u g h t t o be added w o u l d be p r e j u d i c e d t h e r e b y ) . ' (emphasis added)). "Bowman d i d n o t a s s e r t i n h i s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f i l e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r e j u d i c e as j u s t i f i c a t i o n for n o t a l l o w i n g t h e amended c o m p l a i n t to relate back to the f i l i n g of the o r i g i n a l complaint. Before t h i s C o u r t , Bowman s i m p l y a r g u e s t h a t i f a showing of p r e j u d i c e i s necessary, t h a t showing has been met. Bowman h a s f a i l e d t o show t h a t h e i s e n t i t l e d t o mandamus r e l i e f o n t h e g r o u n d o f d e l a y in s u b s t i t u t i n g him f o r a fictitiously named defendant." 986 So. 2d a t 1157-58. In t h e present was t i m e l y . filing undue case, the f i l i n g complaint I do n o t s e e t h e 77 d a y s b e t w e e n t h e t i m e of that complaint delay. of the o r i g i n a l and t h e f i l i n g In any event, I believe o f t h e amendment a s a n there i s a b e t w e e n Bowman a n d t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l 6 of the conflict Appeals 1071340 in relation Further, delay given requirement a showing White o f t h e amended but rather and I t i s n o t an a l t e r n a t i v e , one t h a t of the t r i a l one t h a t entails requires court. reached implicating Appeals could properly prejudice. undue as a g r o u n d I do n o t b e l i e v e base valid question in that i t s decision "legal on ground," o f law and fact the exercise of d i s c r e t i o n on t h e part Furthermore, i t i s a ground that could i n this case the due-process National Life Services F o u n d a t i o n , P.C., Cobb, a mixed of d i d not assert complaint of t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n , ground. be of the fact that Arnold Court of C i v i l that not the i n the f i l i n g support the to Insurance by an appellate court constraints referenced Co. v. U n i v e r s i t y C.J., concurs. 7 i n Liberty of Alabama 881 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 3 , 1020 without Health ( A l a . 2003).

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.