Progress Industries, Inc. v. Dexter K. Wilson and Denise Wilson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:06/30/2010 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, 2009-2010 1080578 Progress Industries, Inc. v. Dexter Appeal SHAW, K. W i l s o n and D e n i s e from R u s s e l l C i r c u i t (CV-06-259) Industries, I n c . ("Progress"), named d e f e n d a n t s b e l o w , a p p e a l s set aside Dexter Court Justice. Progress to Wilson three from t h e d e n i a l o f i t s motion a d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t K. W i l s o n one o f and Denise Wilson, i ta n d i n favor o f t h ep l a i n t i f f s below, i n 1080578 the plaintiffs' products-liability action. We reverse and wood chips from remand. Facts On August beneath a 25, and Procedural 2004, "step while feeder" History cleaning as part of his employment r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w i t h MeadWestvaco, a wood-processing in Phenix resulted As City, i n the a result filed the seeking Dexter suffered amputation of that in pursuant Liability the to injury l e g below the p l a i n t i f f s , underlying action Manufacturer's on-the-job of h i s r i g h t injury, damages an knee. on J u l y 2 6 , 2006, Circuit Alabama D o c t r i n e , as w e l l that the Russell the facility as Court Extended for negligence and w a n t o n n e s s . D e x t e r ' s w i f e , D e n i s e , s o u g h t damages f o r l o s s of consortium. The complaint named Fabricating, Ltd. ("Linden"), a Canadian M e t a l Works, Inc. ("Three-D"), and Progress, designers, an manufacturers, t h e s t e p f e e d e r and plaintiffs Alabama a South defendants Linden corporation; Three-D Carolina corporation, distributors, certain as as and/or corporation; the alleged installers "drag c h a i n " equipment, which a l l e g e d were d e f e c t i v e and u n r e a s o n a b l y 2 of the dangerous. 1080578 On August 15, Tarassoli, drafted which 2006, asserted he manufacture, any sell a or letter that to i n s t a l l the Tarassoli 1 on A u g u s t 18, follows: forwarded Thereafter, both complaint. The Three-D and trial the plaintiffs who their did not feeder, drag as in design, chain referred to i n s t a m p e d i t as 08/18/2006 filed to or the the "filed" 2007. No D003." to 2 the conducted a representative for On first for answers subsequently conference. propounded counsel i t on t h e c a s e - a c t i o n s u m m a r y court Progress Iradj a copy of h i s l e t t e r Linden i n January at ... Comp D e n i e d on scheduling conference appeared plaintiffs' step Court, 2006, and d o c k e t e d "Answer o f president, "[Progress] c l e r k of the R u s s e l l C i r c u i t the the component p a r t s t o MeadWestvaco complaint." as Progress's February discovery 8, 2007, requests to Progress. The conference trial court i n September again conducted 2007, w h i c h , again, a status-review Progress did not The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t P r o g r e s s a d m i t t e d l y s o l d o t h e r equipment t o MeadWestvaco i n 2002, b e f o r e the i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e s t e p f e e d e r and t h e d r a g - c h a i n a s s e m b l y . 1 T h e c a s e - a c t i o n summary i d e n t i f i e s "Progress I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . " 2 3 "D[efendant] 003" as 1080578 attend. trial of Following court the issued subject against J u l y 27, The and entering i t s "failure the record letter, to Progress's at a later 24, 2007, this one addressed i n w h i c h he court's against Progress. "[Progress 2006" and had] 14 In Tarassoli order responded referenced his copy receipt of the previous dated August 16, on judgment that to the Progress entering letter, to authored damages that initial Russell was a letter along default discussed 2006. 4 the Circuit of judgment stated s u m m o n [ s ] on with second in receipt Tarassoli letter a that August 15, above. As an a t t a c h m e n t t o t h e S e p t e m b e r 2007 l e t t e r , T a r a s s o l i a filed default and and date. directly that judgment to appear, respond liability indicated that September default i s c l e a r t h a t the as September a the inspection p l a i n t i f f s ' complaint determined On only 2007, s e t t i n g a date f o r the equipment 2006." w o u l d be the order a l l e g a t i o n s of entered Court, an P r o g r e s s b a s e d on defend the was t h a t p r o c e e d i n g , on S e p t e m b e r 14, enclosed certified-mail Tarassoli indicated that, i f 1080578 necessary, he would be trial court subsequently inspection. The 7, the to Rule judgment Progress upcoming case. On January 5 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. pursuant asserted constituted both issued for Progress d e f a u l t judgment or, that the equipment an setting order the d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t P r o g r e s s . 2008, c o u n s e l appearance i n the pursuant at 3 d a m a g e s h e a r i n g on January present an denying liability; receive the to that requisite in Progress three 2008, P r o g r e s s days' the filed, a motion to set 60(b), Tarassoli's appearance thus, 18, alternative, Rule On f i l e d a formal n o t i c e of C i v . P., i n the a for relief Ala. August case R. and an i t before from Civ. 2006 contended, notice aside P. letter answer did not entry of T a r a s s o l i ' s t e s t i m o n y i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t he did, in fact, attend the equipment inspection. As an explanation f o r h i s absence from the prior proceedings, T a r a s s o l i both denied receiving, from November 2006 u n t i l S e p t e m b e r 2007, any d o c u m e n t s o r n o t i f i c a t i o n s f r o m e i t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l , a n d f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t he d i d n o t a t t e n d t h e e a r l i e r s t a t u s c o n f e r e n c e f o r w h i c h he d i d r e c e i v e n o t i c e b e c a u s e , he s a i d , t h e o r d e r s he d i d r e c e i v e d i d n o t h a v e P r o g r e s s ' s name i n t h e h e a d i n g . Therefore, Tarassoli s t a t e d , he assumed t h a t , p u r s u a n t to h i s i n i t i a l letter, P r o g r e s s h a d b e e n d i s m i s s e d as a d e f e n d a n t . In fact, the orders i n c l u d e d the phrase " e t a l . "i n the h e a d i n g ; however, T a r a s s o l i , w h o s e f i r s t l a n g u a g e i s n o t E n g l i s h , was unaware that that designation could include Progress. 3 5 1080578 default result as r e q u i r e d by of the alleged default judgment was Rule lack void. a m e r i t o r i o u s defense A l a . R. of notice, C i v . P. Progress In support request f o r r e l i e f under Rule had 55(b), of As argued, a the i t s alternative 60(b), Progress asserted that i t to the p l a i n t i f f s ' complaint; that " t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d a s a r e s u l t of inadvertence and excusable the circuit result, neglect"; that at least clerk had been Progress communications might from or injustice default judgment]." exhibits, circuit and a will The exhibits); employee, clerk Tarassoli's Following court; and t h a t "an supported extreme [ o f the by eight of Tarassoli (with attached Progress's to o f Shawn Landress, notification correct mailing be filed in a to the address; place of letter. the f i l i n g of the foregoing motion, propounded i n i t i a l a additional enforcement facsimile answer missed was motion from and, as from the a f f i d a v i t amended initial incorrectly have result evidencing regarding proposed plaintiffs also including the a f f i d a v i t photographic Progress addressed the c i r c u i t hardship one c o m m u n i c a t i o n Progress discovery requests to the p l a i n t i f f s . f i l e d a response t o Progress's motion 6 The to set aside 1080578 the default failed judgment t o show t h a t Specifically, i n which i t was they argued that entitled to the requested not respond addition, initial in letter to outstanding support of to the t r i a l their argument their can i n court only through to the argument t h a t , t h a t P r o g r e s s had Tarassoli's to Rule assertion cited an In Tarassoli's As legal actual authority "[a] c o r p o r a t i o n attorney." yet to a c t u a l l y p l a i n t i f f s ' complaint. r e l i e f pursuant also that i n Alabama, file They further a formal to Progress's answer request 60(b), the p l a i n t i f f s maintained in his affidavit to c o u r t and c o u r t d i d n o t amount t o an supporting noted relief. requests. discovery a p p e a r a n c e by P r o g r e s s , t h e p l a i n t i f f s appear had the p l a i n t i f f s noted t h a t P r o g r e s s had f a i l e d a t t e n d b o t h s t a t u s c o n f e r e n c e s s e t by the t r i a l did Progress t h a t he d i d not for that recall receiving notification of e i t h e r of the s t a t u s conferences d i d not demonstrating amount t o e v i d e n c e inadvertence, excusable n e g l e c t , newly d i s c o v e r e d evidence, or fraud. 2008, motion the trial court to set aside the d e f a u l t On F e b r u a r y 8, brief entered i n support of an order On F e b r u a r y denying Progress's judgment. 2008, P r o g r e s s f i l e d a s u p p l e m e n t a l i t s Rule 55(c) motion 7 7, i n which letter i t noted 1080578 that the t r i a l before court issuing the Progress then complaint denying complaint and a plaintiffs' date, had f a i l e d default filed both an supplement to the alternative Progress's reply an to denying damages $4,261,344 consortium against to the Progress. plaintiffs' i n the of i t s responses requests. the Rule Rule On to the that order on March hearing and claim) totaling opposition, 18, 2008, same court and Denise Dexter the setting damages $750,000. damages (on her a Following trial outi t s adduced d u r i n g the February and awarding awarding 5 5 ( c ) motion 60(b) motion. the p l a i n t i f f s ' f i n d i n g s b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e 2008, a default f i l e d a motion requesting that the t r i a l i t s order entered enter allegations contained discovery reconsider court answer of service outstanding Progress judgment a l l material notice to actually 5, totaling loss-of- 4 We c o n s t r u e t h e S e p t e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , o r d e r i n w h i c h t h e t r i a l court entered a d e f a u l t judgment a g a i n s t Progress w i t h l e a v e t o p r o v e damages as an e n t r y o f d e f a u l t , a n d t h e M a r c h 18, 2 0 0 8 , o r d e r s e t t i n g d a m a g e s a s t h e e n t r y o f a d e f a u l t judgment. S e e E.H. S m i t h & S o n E l e c . C o n t r a c t o r s , I n c . v . Springdale Mall Joint Venture, 592 S o . 2 d 574 , 57 6 ( A l a . 1992). 4 8 1080578 On May court's 20, 2008, award Progress o f damages that request, Progress effort 26, Progress the t r i a l would to the p l a i n t i f f s . "be a l l o w e d S e p t e m b e r 5, 2 0 0 8 , t h e t r i a l default judgment Rule 54(b), A l a . R. again filed a to set aside award, alleging The Progress's October 18, 2008, On the default plaintiffs 2008 final order setting 2, On certifying pursuant 2008, to Progress t o Rule 55(c), judgment and t h e damages same grounds subsequently on a t the time that pursuant the motion August indicating final October purportedly essentially asserted. On i n discovery." as of f i l e d i n an c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r Progress trial I n support an o r d e r to participate against motion, j u d g m e n t became entered C i v . P. seeking the from t h e d e f a u l t judgment. court the to set aside adopted a l lp r i o r pleadings to obtain relief 2008, moved grounds moved that of the t r i a l damages and, previously to strike the default court's March therefore, they c o n t e n d e d , P r o g r e s s ' s O c t o b e r 2 0 0 8 m o t i o n was u n t i m e l y b e c a u s e it 18, was filed 2008, "forever more order. lost than 30 d a y s after the e n t r y of the March They f u r t h e r argued t h a t Progress i t s appeal rights." 9 had a l s o 1080578 Despite filed and t h e judgment a witness an list, against i t , Progress subsequently a designation of i t sproposed evidentiary filing consisting of a experts, portion of the d e p o s i t i o n o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p o s e d e x p e r t , Dr. I g o r P a u l , in preparation for t r i a l . proceeded Three-D filed all claims 9, 2009, operation to to mediation. a joint i n their the Before As complaint trial result, stipulation court of law" Progress's set aside a the t r i a l date, the a g a i n s t Three-D. entered an October matter the p l a i n t i f f s dismissing with order February denying 2, 2 0 0 8 , m o t i o n t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t a n d damages and prejudice On 6 5 "by seeking award. Discussion Initially, consistent appeal trial with we their i s untimely. court's note order that, on appeal, the plaintiffs, argument below, a s s e r t t h a t Specifically, became final -- they and maintain Progress's that t h e 42-day the appeal The designated portion of Paul's deposition dealt p r i m a r i l y w i t h h i s o p i n i o n s as t o t h e a l l e g e d d e f e c t s i n P r o g r e s s ' s equipment and t h e r o l e those d e f e c t s might have played i n Dexter's work-related i n j u r y . 5 On February 4, 2009, Progress filed a appearance adding a d d i t i o n a l counsel of record. o r i g i n a l counsel l a t e r withdrew. 6 10 notice of Progress's 1080578 period provided triggered damages -was for at the in Rule time entered. 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. the March We disagree. multiple defendants named i n the judgment against Progress d i d not of appeal, 54(b) until the 18, trial 2008, App. was order assessing Because plaintiffs' there complaint, become f i n a l , court's P., September for 5, were the purposes 2008, Rule certification. "The s i g n i f i c a n c e of a judgment a g a i n s t l e s s than a l l o f t h e p a r t i e s i s t h a t t h e judgment does 'not t e r m i n a t e t h e a c t i o n as t o any o f t h e c l a i m s o r p a r t i e s , and t h e o r d e r or o t h e r f o r m o f d e c i s i o n i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i s i o n a t any t i m e b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f judgment a d j u d i c a t i n g a l l t h e c l a i m s and t h e r i g h t s and l i a b i l i t i e s of a l l t h e p a r t i e s . ' R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , Alabama R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . (Emphasis added.) A judgment by d e f a u l t , r e n d e r e d i n advance a g a i n s t one o f s e v e r a l d e f e n d a n t s , i s i n t e r l o c u t o r y until f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n i s made as t o a l l t h e d e f e n d a n t s . F o r d M o t o r C r e d i t C o m p a n y v . C a r m i c h a e l , A l a . , 383 So. 2d 539 (1980). Interlocutory orders and judgments a r e , t h e r e f o r e , not brought w i t h i n the r e s t r i c t i v e p r o v i s i o n s of Rule 60(b), Alabama Rules of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , w h i c h p r o v i d e s f o r r e l i e f from final judgments. I n s t e a d , such orders are left w i t h i n the p l e n a r y power of the c o u r t t h a t r e n d e r e d them t o a f f o r d r e l i e f f r o m them as j u s t i c e r e q u i r e s . Wright & Miller, F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and Procedure: C i v i l [§] 2 8 5 2 . " Hallman v. Marion Corp., 411 So. (footnote omitted). 11 2d 130, 132 ( A l a . 1982 ) 1080578 Further, the default Progress's October judgment pursuant within 30 days Mobile of Homes, the Inc. Civ. App. 1978) Civ. P., the Rule v. 2008, m o t i o n to Rule 54(b) Ellison, (noting that, default 2, 361 So. pursuant judgment days thereafter to was file a set 776 So. a s i d e the judgment aside as the final." time, 59.1, 35 final, nor set i n Rule operation of day C i v . P., thereafter. law and 7 the by Progress. 7 The t r i a l Progress asserts 10 94 (Ala. notice now and had aside the a d d e d ) ) ; Ex p a r t e c o u r t d i d not the i t s own making that tolled App. P., 31, appeal until 2008 , that set judgment the o f a p p e a l was concluded default motion i t see was Rule filed on Progress's turn to the issues raised three separate allegations c o u r t ' s F e b r u a r y 2009 o r d e r i s t h u s a 12 R. appealable set trial on December Having a p p e a l i s p r o p e r l y b e f o r e u s , we Lawler 54(b), A l a . to motion A l a . R. on See certifying after This 4, filed "that defendant ("The court days added)). out A l a . R. 30 and (emphasis before d i d the timely 1092, final motion ( A l a . 2000) e n t r y of d e f a u l t (emphasis by 42d 31, judgment w i t h i n as denied the 2d 2d to Rule not d e f a u l t judgment" under Rule 55(c) King, was certification. u n t i l d i s m i s s a l of remaining defendant thirty 55(c) to set aside of nullity. 1080578 error regarding default the judgment. trial We court's hold, i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e r e was case sufficient default to judgment pretermit on Rule that of the the Ala. Civ. has served appeared three (3) upon the ("Once e n t r y who the the days p r i o r a l s o D i a l v. 1979) defend, in against P., w i t h w r i t t e n n o t i c e of the party party R. sought a the aside the dispositive Progress this before given in the i t ; therefore, remaining "If App. set issues raised we by appeal. 55(b)(2), See be against part: least that notice entered discussion Progress however, to an " a p p e a r a n c e " b y require was refusal had actual whom action, of appeared judgment judgment the So. 2d d e f a u l t has of by party hearing 374 but in pertinent default ... shall a p p l i c a t i o n f o r judgment to the State, provides, has on 361, 362 g i v i n g of t h r e e days n o t i c e b e f o r e only against failed be to obtained the h e a r i n g on application."). "[W]hether a defendant's acts amount to an ' a p p e a r a n c e ' w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f R u l e 55 d e p e n d s upon t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s presented i n each c a s e . I n A l a b a m a , t h e g e n e r a l r u l e r e l a t i n g t o an ' a p p e a r a n c e ' i s s t a t e d i n C o c k r e l l v. W o r l d ' s F i n e s t C h o c o l a t e , I n c . , 349 So. 2 d 1 1 1 7 , 1120 (Ala. 1977), 13 at (Ala. Civ. been o b t a i n e d can be such a p p l i c a t i o n subsequently default is the 1080578 [ o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s b y Ex p a r t e K e i t h , So. 2 d 1018 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , ] a s f o l l o w s : 771 "'An a p p e a r a n c e i n an a c t i o n i n v o l v e s some s u b m i s s i o n o r p r e s e n t a t i o n to the c o u r t b y w h i c h a p a r t y shows h i s i n t e n t i o n to submit h i m s e l f t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c o u r t . P o r t - W i d e C o n t a i n e r Co., I n c . v. I n t e r s t a t e M a i n t e n a n c e C o r p . , 440 F . 2 d 1 1 9 5 ( 3 r d C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) ; H.F. L i v e r m o r e C o r p . v . Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder Loepfe, 13 9 U.S. A p p . D.C. 2 5 6 , 432 F . 2 d 689 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ; A n d e r s o n v . T a y l o r c r a f t , I n c . , 197 F. S u p p . 872 (W.D. P a . 1 9 6 1 ) . S e e a l s o W r i g h t & Miller, [Federal Practice & Procedure: C i v i l ] a t § 2 6 8 6 ; A n n o . , 27 A . L . R . F e d . 6 2 0 ; A n n o . , 73 A . L . R . 3 d 1 2 5 0 . ' " I n Hen H o u s e [ , I n c . v . R o b e r t s o n , 410 S o . 2 d 42 (Ala. 1982)], t h i s Court held that the f i l i n g of a n o t h e r a c t i o n i n t h e same c o u r t , i n v o l v i n g t h e same subject matter as t h e s u i t i n which a default judgment was obtained, was a 'constructive appearance.' R e c e n t l y , i n Western Union Telegraph Co. v . C r o w d e r , 547 S o . 2 d 8 7 6 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , t h e Court, r e j e c t i n g the Livermore rationale, held that correspondence between p l a i n t i f f ' s and defendant's c o u n s e l , c o n c e r n i n g s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e case and an e x t e n s i o n o f time t o answer t h e c o m p l a i n t , d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e an ' a p p e a r a n c e . ' The C o u r t n o t e d t h a t i n each Alabama case i n w h i c h an appearance h a d been found, some w r i t i n g h a d b e e n f i l e d i n court to i n d i c a t e an i n t e n t i o n t o d e f e n d t h e a c t i o n . " Lee v. Martin, 533 So. 2d 185, 186 ( A l a . 1988) (emphasis added). "[W]e n o t e t h a t o u r p o l i c y f a v o r s t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of cases on the merits, disfavoring default j u d g m e n t s . C o c k r e l l v. W o r l d ' s F i n e s t C h o c o l a t e Co., I n c . , A l a . , 349 So. 2 d 1117 ( 1 9 7 7 ) [ , o v e r r u l e d on 14 1080578 o t h e r g r o u n d s b y E x p a r t e K e i t h , 771 S o . 2 d So. 1018 (Ala. 1998)]. Furthermore, c o u r t s have ref u s e d t o a p p l y an o v e r l y t e c h n i c a l a n d r e s t r i c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n o f ' a p p e a r a n c e ' i n c o n s t r u i n g R u l e 55. See, United S t a t e s v . One 1 9 6 6 C h e v r o l e t P i c k u p T r u c k , 56 F.R.D. 459 (E.D. T e x . 1 9 7 2 ) . "The c a s e o f H u t t o n v . F i s h e r , 359 F . 2 d 913 ( 3 r d Cir. 1966), i s i l l u s t r a t i v e of t h i s p o i n t . There, d e f e n d a n t , as h e r e , f a i l e d t o f i l e an a n s w e r o r f i l e other pleadings but d i d r e q u e s t and receive an assurance from opposing counsel t h a t he w o u l d be g i v e n a d d i t i o n a l t i m e t o a n s w e r . The c a s e was then assigned to another a t t o r n e y w i t h i n the p l a i n t i f f ' s l a w f i r m who made a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a n d g o t a d e f a u l t judgment. This attorney was not aware of the a g r e e m e n t o f h i s p a r t n e r . The c o u r t h e l d t h a t u n d e r such circumstances the e n t r y of the d e f a u l t was i m p r o p e r a n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t was d u e n o t i c e . " " F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a , i n C o c k r e l l v. W o r l d ' s F i n e s t C h o c o l a t e Co., Inc., supra, d e t e r m i n e d t h a t the n o t i c e r e q u i r e d by R u l e 5 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) , [ A l a . R. C i v . P . ] , m u s t b e g i v e n w h e n t h e d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y h a s a p p e a r e d a n d 'has i n d i c a t e d a clear purpose to defend the action.' (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) 349 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 2 0 . T h e r e , t h e d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a document s t a t i n g h i s a t t o r n e y would r e p l y w i t h i n a few d a y s , t h a t d e f e n d a n t h a d b e e n o u t o f t o w n , and t h a t h i s a t t o r n e y w o u l d be i n c o n t a c t v e r y soon. The court c o n c l u d e d t h i s was a sufficient 'appearance' under the r u l e . " Dial v. State, Here, style of referenced 374 So. Tarassoli's the the case 2d a t 362-63. initial and previously the letter correct issued 15 included case summons. the number correct and also Additionally, i t 1080578 indicated that that, summons. intent by the l e t t e r , The l e t t e r t o submit P r o g r e s s was further communicated t h e r e q u i s i t e to the j u r i s d i c t i o n defend the action by denying l i a b i l i t y condition against 349 precedent to the entry C o c k r e l l v. World's So. 2 d 1 1 1 7 , 1120 (1977); D i a l , i s true that, of the court i n Western default Finest a letter or defendant's letters C h o c o l a t e Co., 374 S o . 2 d a t 3 6 3 . Union Telegraph c o u n s e l t o be an of Rule 55(b)(2)" filing, as an Alabama case t h a t exchanged between 'appearance' appearance had been default. 547 as So. i t might made 2d at by be, with 8 900 S o . 2 d 4 1 2 , 418 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , concluded that, i n t h e absence In C r o w d e r , we federal courts have h o w e v e r , we e x p r e s s l y 879. diligent has found of the f i l i n g and " w i t h o u t some court," held this v. t h e meaning the Similarly, Phillips, 8 within the defendant 879. Co. plaintiff's and u l t i m a t e l y concluded t h a t meager a judgment C r o w d e r , 547 S o . 2 d 8 7 6 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , we o b s e r v e d t h a t research had f a i l e d t o "reveal and t o s o a s t o make n o t i c e of a v a l i d Progress. It "responding" to no t o be i n i n Ex Court of a parte likewise written noted a u t h o r i t y i n d i c a t i n g that "the treated letters as an 'appearance'"; r e j e c t e d t h a t a u t h o r i t y . 547 S o . 2 d a t 16 1080578 document w i t h the t r i a l a letter between 'submission shows of or c o u r t , "[a] opposing the court,'" requirement of so as Rule Progress did, in fact, In an in a present Alabama represent parte is that "a 738 officer corporation, Broadcast of the a jurisdiction three-day notice however, one before us letter on a party in are which a copy of T a r a s s o l i ' s l e t t e r the the plaintiffs c o n s t i t u t e an legal So. who with case-action even 2d must one 778, Inc., 698 a The to general rule in Ex ( A l a . 1998). as an advocate owns, Stage 2d licensed appear to 779 law." 17 because, attorney wholly So. appearance that s u c h as a c o r p o r a t i o n . " entity, he of be argue a non-attorney corporation. "appear[s] practice Music, a person a separate unauthorized the which cases, the case, cannot behalf Ghafary, corporate a letter on to constitute Those say, Alabama law does not p e r m i t case by and answer. the Tarassoli's not invoke from file do [itself] c o u r t , which docketed the summary as they to conversation court the 55(b)(2). distinguishable trial to submit clearly the counsel presentation [ i t s ] i n t e n t i o n to telephone 787 , a behalf of on [engages] Door 787 Further, Dev., in the Inc. v. (Ala. Civ. App. 1080578 1997). This non-attorney purporting the rule has So. serves, a protecting citizens of on skill the inexperienced We have a separate law other by part "to of those cannot an 55(b)(2). "injury c a u s e d by t h o s e who 2d at Further, actions do would not purpose ignorance are u n t r a i n e d 779, not and be and to served Chief Justice stated parte Hy-Line E n t e r p r i s e s , "The rationale for l e g a l a r g u m e n t s on of by Inc., a 751 lack and So. 2d at a pleading purposes skill 779. on of the law," that 1247 se Rule from part of 738 So. case. opinion (Ala. in As Ex 1999): n o t a l l o w i n g a l a y m a n t o make b e h a l f o f someone e l s e i s n o t 18 an Tarassoli's in this dissenting 2d per citizens i n the holding So. by and protecting lack ... i n d i c a t i n g that for of the untrained 738 "appearance" in in corporation, public are file inexperienced c o n s t i t u t e an Hooper who "appearance" the a nullity. ignorance i n Alabama a non-attorney a the Ghafary, decision is a law accordingly represent protect i m p r o p e r a t t e m p t by constitute and c a u s e d by law f o u n d no entity by purpose of t h i s p r o h i b i t i o n must injury filed p r a c t i c e of non-attorneys, attorney from a pleading legal The things, i n the that unauthorized 2d a t 7 8 - 8 1 . licensed among held i n the to represent p r a c t i c e of that thus engaging G h a f a r y , 738 on Court 1080578 a p p l i c a b l e here. In t h i s case, even though Hoff c a n n o t r e p r e s e n t t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , he s h o u l d , a s an a g e n t o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , be a b l e t o make an i n i t i a l a p p e a r a n c e f o r t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . An a p p e a r a n c e w o u l d have e n t i t l e d Hy-Line t o n o t i c e of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r s t a t i n g t h a t i f a c t i o n was not taken i n the c a s e , t h e c a s e w o u l d be dismissed. "Apparently, n e i t h e r the p l a i n t i f f ' s attorney nor the t r i a l c o u r t i n f o r m e d Hy-Line t h a t i t c o u l d not m a k e an appearance i n the case w i t h o u t an a t t o r n e y . Hy-Line a l l e g e s i n i t s p e t i t i o n t h a t the case action summary i n d i c a t e d t h a t Hy-Line was proceeding 'pro se' and that the plaintiff's a t t o r n e y knew t h a t H o f f h a d f i l e d w h a t p u r p o r t e d to be an a n s w e r f o r t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . H y - L i n e s h o u l d n o t be p r e v e n t e d f r o m p r e s e n t i n g t h e m e r i t s o f i t s c a s e s i m p l y b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t know t h a t i t s ' a p p e a r a n c e ' was i n v a l i d . A t t h e v e r y l e a s t , H y - L i n e was entitled to n o t i c e of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s order s t a t i n g t h a t i f no a c t i o n was t a k e n t h e c a s e w o u l d be dismissed." 751 So. 2d Operating at 1248-49 Eng'rs Plumbing, Inc., (finding requirements "satisfied Barrett, (2000) by 208 ("The Local 130 that (Hooper, F. 139 C.J., Health Supp. 2d a W. "appearance" Rule 55(b)(2)[, Fund v. 1023-24 (E.D. triggering Fed. Va. 709 R. pleading"); term n.2, 'appeared i n the default judgment under f r o m an appearance Rule for other Civ. Colonial 542 S.E.2d the Rawson 2001) notice P.,] may be Ins. Co. v. 869, 872 a c t i o n , ' f o r purposes of 55(b)(2) purposes 19 also Wis. defective 706, See Benefit 1022, the of dissenting). ... i s quite "). n.2 a different 1080578 Tarassoli's letter letter i n Evans 1983). In v. Evans i n the Evans, 441 to intention respond the plaintiff's Civil an Appeals appearance i n Evans f o r purposes A d d i t i o n a l l y , as this response, Progress, 441 So. 2d Tarassoli's court due w i t h i n the answers and (Ala. Civ. to divorce legal the trial despite letter was timely and to of 2d at deficiency of t h r o u g h T a r a s s o l i , "has So. at a l l times of t h i s we note filed App. constituted 441 the [ i t s ] defense action." both with that the trial 30-day response period required once P r o g r e s s r e c e i v e d that, a Court The letter to court counsel 55(b)(2). Specifically, initial the petition. of Rule i n Evans, 950. initial 948 retain diligence in at 2d concluded that 950. demonstrated i s similar wrote defendant her case So. the indicating to instant notice of the for entry of d e f a u l t , i t immediately undertook e f f o r t s to o b t a i n relief. Moreover, dissent in as Hy-Line, prior to Progress likely Chief J u s t i c e Hooper p o i n t e d supra, had default, of the out in his Progress r e c e i v e d the r e q u i s i t e n o t i c e that alleged notice would deficiency also i n i t s answer have l e d t o P r o g r e s s ' s o b t a i n i n g 20 have legal informed and would representation 1080578 at a much e a r l i e r the stage, p r o b l e m now b e f o r e thus preventing, i n a l l likelihood, us. "Once a n e n t r y o f d e f a u l t h a s b e e n obtained against a party who has appeared but has s u b s e q u e n t l y f a i l e d t o defend, t h e a c t u a l judgment o f d e f a u l t c a n be o b t a i n e d o n l y upon p r o v i d i n g t h r e e d a y s ' n o t i c e b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n , e x c e p t t h a t a d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t may b e e n t e r e d b y t h e c o u r t on t h e d a y t h e c a s e i s s e t f o r t r i a l . Rule 5 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) , [ A l a . ] R. C i v . P.; D i a l v . S t a t e , 374 S o . 2d 361 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 9 ) . Our Supreme C o u r t h a s determined that the notice required by Rule 5 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) , [ A l a . ] R. C i v . P., m u s t b e g i v e n w h e n t h e d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y h a s a p p e a r e d a n d 'has i n d i c a t e d a c l e a r purpose t o d e f e n d t h e a c t i o n . ' C o c k r e l l v. W o r l d ' s F i n e s t C h o c o l a t e Co., 349 So. 2 d 1117, 1120 (Ala. 1 9 7 7 ) . I t i s w i t h o u t d i s p u t e t h a t no t h r e e d a y notice was given before the hearing on the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t , n o r was t h e c a u s e s e t f o r t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s a t t h e t i m e t h e j u d g m e n t o f d e f a u l t was e n t e r e d . " S o u t h w o r t h v . U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h A l a b a m a Med. C t r . , 2d of 896, 897-98 the foregoing, "favor[ing] disfavor[ing] 1120, ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994). of keeping the determination with of Here, i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n our cases the the failure default to give judgment on policy the merits of the t r i a l court i s due 21 notice regardless Tarassoli's letter alleged a meritorious judgment stated of and d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t s , ' s e e C o c k r e l l , 349 So. 2d a t and because vacation in 637 S o . requires of the whether defense, see i d ., the t o be reversed and the 1080578 cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. R E V E R S E D AND Cobb, and REMANDED. C . J . , and W o o d a l l , Stuart, Murdock, J J . , concur. Lyons, J . , concurs specially. 22 Smith, Bolin, Parker, 1080578 LYONS, Justice (concurring specially). Under analogous r u l e s from other can b e f o u n d on b o t h filed by a corporation appearance that before sides the corporate the requirement and filing have officer required without of default lacks counsel against whether a document can notice filed before serve an at the time Dalminter, I n c . v. J e s s i e 493 (S.D. T e x . given Where recognize serving to the complaint, courts appearance and therefore of a default judgment. Edwards, 1961): "Defendant Rosson-Richards had a r i g h t t o b e l i e v e t h a t by 14th to counsel for plaintiff summons, i t h a d a p p e a r e d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s R u l e 5 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) , F. i n p a r t as f o l l o w s : I n c . , 27 F.R.D. 4 9 1 , Co. o f T e x a s , I n c . , i t s l e t t e r of March i n answer t o t h e action. Under these R. C i v . P., r e a d i n g "'... I f the party against whom judgment by d e f a u l t i s sought has appeared in t h e a c t i o n , he ( o r , i f a p p e a r i n g by representative, h i s representative) shall be served with written notice of the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r judgment a t l e a s t 3 days p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g on s u c h a p p l i c a t i o n . . . . ' 23 an of the entry See as n o t i c e be the s o p h i s t i c a t i o n to i n response t h e document authority the corporation. of r e t a i n i n g counsel a document deemed of the question t r i g g e r s the requirement that the entry have jurisdictions, 1080578 "applies. The letter of defendant served on p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l was an a p p e a r a n c e , a n d i t b e c a m e the duty o f P l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l , when s e e k i n g a j u d g m e n t by d e f a u l t , t o a p p r i s e t h e C o u r t o f s a i d l e t t e r and t o g i v e t h e n o t i c e c o n t e m p l a t e d under Rule 55(b)(2). I f t h i s had been done, the d e f e n d a n t c o u l d h a v e e m p l o y e d c o u n s e l a t t h a t t i m e , j u s t as i t d i d when t h e w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n was s e r v e d on i t . " (Emphasis added.) Benefit 1024 Fund v. (E.D. Wis. See also Operating Rawson P l u m b i n g , E n g ' r s L o c a l 139 Inc., 130 F. Supp. Health 2d 1022, 2001): "In a d d i t i o n , i t i s not obvious to a l a y p e r s o n t h a t a n o n - a t t o r n e y c o r p o r a t e o f f i c e r may n o t a p p e a r p r o s e on a c o r p o r a t i o n ' s b e h a l f . G i v e n t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of summary d e f a u l t o r dismissal, a corporation a t t e m p t i n g t o p r o c e e d p r o s e m u s t be p r o v i d e d n o t i c e t h a t i t i s r e q u i r e d t o a p p e a r b y c o u n s e l , j u s t as a pro s e p l a i n t i f f m u s t be p r o v i d e d n o t i c e o f the s e r i o u s consequences of f a i l i n g to submit a f f i d a v i t s i n r e s p o n s e t o a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t . " (Emphasis added.) Compare 08-CV-01569-RPM-KMT, published i n F. March Seme v . 19, E&H 2010) Prof'l (D. Sec. Colo. Co., 2010) Supp.): "Defendants have t w i c e sought to appear b e f o r e t h i s court without counsel. The c o u r t has repeatedly informed Connie Edwards t h a t c o r p o r a t i o n s cannot appear through a non-attorney corporate officer, s u c h a s Ms. E d w a r d s , a p p e a r i n g p r o s e . (Doc. Nos. 18, 2 8 ) ; s e e H a r r i s o n v . W a h a t o y a s , L L C , 2 53 F.3d 5 5 2 , 556 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 2001 ) . S i n c e no a t t o r n e y h a s entered an appearance on behalf of Defendant c o m p a n i e s a n d n o n e o f t h e a p p e a r a n c e s b y Ms. E d w a r d s b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t were p r o p e r , the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t Defendant companies have f a i l e d to appear pursuant 24 (No. (not 1080578 to the Rules. requirement of inapplicable." (Emphasis concur added.) with Progressive Ala. R. Civ. dissenting only that I i n Ex Hy-Line denial of a p e t i t i o n taken as an merits of ("A as the an view that the of Rule by 55(b)(2), is to f o r the the as a w r i t of of for the example good of certiorari approval of of the m e r i t s of expression the 513 certiorari by controversy."). 25 the the that writ why should the 751 I am participated in petition Ex p a r t e A d d e r h o l d , denial with dissenting). C o u r t who deny stands consistent Hy-Line E n t e r p r i s e s , Inc., this disposition Accord 1987) considered main (Hooper, C.J., indication court's controversy. (Ala. the for purposes parte concurred certiorari. appellate opinion this ( A l a . 1999) and in I P. J u s t i c e c u r r e n t l y on case, here presented, I r a d j T a r a s s o l i c o n s t i t u t e d an a p p e a r a n c e opinion 1247 s e v e n day notice P. 55(b)(2) is circumstances conclusion recognize 2d the I n d u s t r i e s , Inc., I So. Under the document f i l e d by A c c o r d i n g l y , the Fed. R. Civ. not of the be intermediate of the underlying So. 1035, 2d should reviewing never court on 1036 be 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.