Ex parte 3M Company, Inc., et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Willard Stover v. Synagro-WWT, Inc., et al. ))

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:02/05/2010 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 , 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, 2009-2010 1081246 Ex p a r t e 3M Company, I n c . , e t a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Willard Stover v. Synagro-WWT, (Franklin C i r c u i t Inc.,e t a l . ) Court, CV-09-900005) 1081254 Ex p a r t e T o r a y F l u o r o f i b e r s America, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : W i l l a r d Stover v. Synagro-WWT, I n c . , e t a l . ) (Franklin C i r c u i t Court, CV-09-900005) 1081265 Ex p a r t e Synagro S o u t h , L L C , a n d Synagro-WWT, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : W i l l a r d Stover v. Synagro-WWT, I n c . , e t a l . and David Gaston v. Synagro-WWT, I n c . , e t a l . ) (Franklin BOLIN, C i r c u i t Court, Justice. The f o l l o w i n g filed CV-09-900005 a n d CV-09-900009) separate petitioners, petitions defendants i nt h et r i a l f o ra writ 2 o f mandamus court, i n this 1081246, 1081254, 1081265 proceeding arising consolidated i n the Franklin C i r c u i t Daikin America, Toray two actions America, Inc. (case We have no. no. relief, actions. the i . e . , a change the p e t i t i o n s In case no. 1081246 p e t i t i o n s and i s s u e grant the p e t i t i o n o f venue and case i n part and deny (case f o r the seek i n the similar underlying no. 1081254, the w r i t s ; i n case Inc., 1081246); Inc. ("Synagro") consolidated then 1 0 8 1 2 5 4 ) ; and p u r p o s e o f w r i t i n g one o p i n i o n b e c a u s e a l l t h r e e mandamus and 3M C o m p a n y , LLC ( c a s e L L C , a n d Synagro-WWT, 1081265). filed Court: I n c . , and Dyneon, Fluorofibers Synagro South, no. from we grant no. 1081265, i t i n part we and i s s u e t h e writ. I. On class February action petitioners Facts 5, in in 2009, the case B i o l o g i c a l Processors defendants and P r o c e d u r a l Willard Franklin no. History Stover Circuit 1081245 and filed Court case statewide against no. defendants had n e g l i g e n t l y p o l l u t e d farmland, and water i n F r a n k l i n County and o t h e r acid 3 named action"), a l l e g i n g that the Alabama w i t h p e r f l u o r o o c t a n o i c the 1081265, o f Alabama, I n c . , and f i c t i t i o u s l y (CV-09-900005-"the Stover supplies a ("PFOA"), grasslands, counties in perfluorooctane 1081246, 1081254, 1081265 sulfonate ("PFOS"), and other perfluorochemicals (hereinafter sometimes referred to as sought to represent was composed of State of Alabama PFOA, PFOS, onto t h e i r and who, within other p r o p e r t y by the complaint, not own property On February 16, County, filed Court parties be past six defendants." At 2009, only a had day, Civ. P., had or time County, dumped he and filed he David Gaston, and in the other a Gaston onto his filed did resident Franklin fictitiously alleging property a motion, s e e k i n g to have h i s case in Franklin pursuant named that County. to Rule of Circuit n e g l i g e n t l y c a u s e d a n d / o r a l l o w e d PFOA a n d released next have County. complaint Synagro the years, the Stover within released r e s i d e d i n Lawrence in Franklin class " [ a ] l l persons (CV-09-900009-"the Gaston a c t i o n " ) , defendants to Stover against the The 1 perfluorochemicals the Franklin "biosolids"). 42, c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h the the PFOS The 2 Ala. Stover S p e c i f i c a l l y , the a l l e g a t i o n s stem from the p r a c t i c e s p r e a d i n g b i o s o l i d s (sewage s l u d g e c u l l e d f r o m i n d u s t r i a l human w a s t e ) on f a r m l a n d a s a way o f d i s p o s i n g o f t h i s p r o d u c t o f m u n i c i p a l sewage t r e a t m e n t . These human-waste p r o d u c t s c o n t a i n , among o t h e r t h i n g s , PFOA a n d PFOS, w h i c h a l l e g e d t o be h i g h l y t o x i c substances. 1 Synagro actually performed b i o s o l i d s onto the farmlands. The m a n u f a c t u r i n g f a c i l i t i e s i n Morgan 2 4 the "spreading" other p e t i t i o n e r s County. R. of and by¬ by¬ are of the operate 1081246, action; 19, 1081254, the trial c o u r t c o n s o l i d a t e d the 2009, F r a n k l i n Commission, All 1081265 the County, i n t e r v e n e d as plaintiffs February 23, America, Inc., purporting The by 2009, and and a adding as Toray to b r i n g defendants through a plaintiff filed cases. Stover amended defendants Carbon Fibers Toray America, Inc., b e h a l f of a s t a t e w i d e moved transfer the Stover where the d e f e n d a n t s ' m a n u f a c t u r i n g are pursuant to Rule 82(d), c o n t e n d i n g t h a t venue i n F r a n k l i n 6-3-7, A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , proper in Franklin and, (the forum County, defendants non stated, the case pursuant conveniens among Ala. was alternatively, t r a n s f e r r e d to Morgan County, 3-21.1 County other things, of Lawrence County; that Stover property in Franklin County; that the business in Alabama for County; and that relevant a l l the witnesses 5 P., under nonetheless be and § Specifically, does defendants § was Stover not principal is documents T o r a y C a r b o n F i b e r s A m e r i c a , I n c . , was a c t i o n b e f o r e t h e s e p e t i t i o n s were f i l e d . 3 Civ. i f venue that resident to facilities t o A l a . Code 1975, statute). and 3 action R. that, on class. improper should action. Fluorofibers c l a i m s on to County complaint Morgan County, located, February the F r a n k l i n i n the second On 6¬ the is a own any places of in Morgan pertaining d i s m i s s e d from the 1081246, to 1081254, the stated plaintiffs find the Stover County. Morgan[,] the appropriate This property relief [action] both trial court 2009, and e n t e r e d conducted an o r d e r f o r the Stover under § 6-3-7(a)(1), complained w o u l d be t o s e n d Mr. located Stover in Lawrence, not action because of i n the Stover the Stover [action]." was proper i n Franklin "many o f t h e a c t s [action] took The t r i a l or place County was disagreed that Morgan available. County was i n Franklin t h e most forum the t r i a l convenient the Stover with than court forum. a c t i o n and the Gaston a c t i o n and sua sponte t r a n s f e r r e d t h e S t o v e r 6 claims f u r t h e r agreed However, court instead "deconsolidated" County omissions to p l a i n t i f f ' s court that i n F r a n k l i n County t h e d e f e n d a n t s t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c o n v e n i e n t Franklin on May o n May 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 , c o n c l u d i n g were a f f e c t e d by t h e c o n d u c t g i v i n g r i s e trial and h i s an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g C o u n t y " a n d "many p a r c e l s o f r e a l p r o p e r t y The forum f o r ... t o L a w r e n c e , n o t i s so b e c a u s e are The County." venue in County. r e q u e s t i n g that "should the Court and not t h e Gaston contaminated i n Morgan c o u n t y w o u l d be a more c o n v e n i e n t [action], case, The are located f i l e d a response, Morgan[,] 1, claims that another that 1081265 action 1081246, 1081254, 1081265 to Lawrence County--on the bases t h a t Stover L a w r e n c e C o u n t y and biosolids that the took place was t h a t the v a s t m a j o r i t y of the there. 4 Gaston a c t i o n remain The trial court a resident of spreading of further ordered i n F r a n k l i n County because that T h e s e p a r a t e n a t u r e and i d e n t i t y o f c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n s was d i s c u s s e d i n H . J . T . v . S t a t e ex r e l . M.S.M., [Ms. 2 0 8 0 5 9 5 , O c t o b e r 9, 2 0 0 9 ] So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , i n which the Court of C i v i l Appeals s t a t e d : 4 "'[W]hen two or more actions are c o n s o l i d a t e d u n d e r R u l e 42, A l a . R. Civ. P., t h e a c t i o n s do n o t l o s e t h e i r separate identities. L e a g u e v . M c D o n a l d , 355 So. 2d 695, 697 (Ala. 1978). Moreover, "[a]n o r d e r of c o n s o l i d a t i o n does not merge the a c t i o n s i n t o a s i n g l e [ a c t i o n ] , change the r i g h t s o r t h e p a r t i e s , o r make t h o s e who are p a r t i e s t o one [action] parties to a n o t h e r . " J e r o m e A. H o f f m a n , A l a b a m a C i v i l P r o c e d u r e § 5.71 (2d e d . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c i t i n g E v e r s v. Link Enters., Inc., 38 6 So. 2d 1177 (Ala.Civ.App. 1980)). Finally, "'in c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n s ... the p a r t i e s and pleadings i n one action do not become p a r t i e s and p l e a d i n g s i n t h e o t h e r . ' " Ex p a r t e F l e x i b l e P r o d s . Co., 915 So. 2d 34, 50 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o t i n g T e a g u e v . M o t e s , 57 A l a . A p p . 6 0 9 - 1 3 , 330 So. 2d 4 3 4 , 438 ( C i v . 1976)).' " S o l o m o n v . L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 953 So. 2d 1211, 1222 ( A l a . 200 6) . When a c t i o n s a r e ordered consolidated, 'each action retains its separate i d e n t i t y and t h u s r e q u i r e s t h e e n t r y o f a separate j u d g m e n t . ' L e a g u e v . M c D o n a l d , 355 So. 2d 6 9 5 , 697 (Ala. 1978)." 7 1081246, action 1081254, "arises 1081265 solely out of i n j u r i e s incurred in Franklin County." Synagro directing petitioned the consolidated action -- (other than this Franklin action Circuit for a writ Court to -- i . e . , t h e S t o v e r a c t i o n t o Morgan County. The r e m a i n i n g B i o l o g i c a l Processors separate p e t i t i o n s , sought Franklin C i r c u i t Court Morgan Court a writ of Alabama, only mandamus, transfer defendants Inc.), i n two d i r e c t i n g the the Stover action County. II. Standard of Review " T h i s C o u r t w i l l i s s u e a w r i t o f mandamus only when t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d ' " ' ( 1 ) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the order sought; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e duty upon the respondent to 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 r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked jurisdiction of the court.'"' Ex parte J o r d a n , 779 S o . 2 d 1 8 3 , 184 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e P & H C o n s t r . C o , 723 S o . 2 d 4 5 , 47 ( A l a . 1998), quoting i n turn Ex p a r t e United Serv. S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 S o . 2 d 5 0 1 , 503 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ) ; see a l s o Ex p a r t e M a s t e r B o a t B u i l d e r s , I n c . , 779 So. 2 d 192 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . 'A p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e means f o r c h a l l e n g i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o t r a n s f e r an a c t i o n ' b e c a u s e o f i m p r o p e r v e n u e . E x p a r t e A l a b a m a P o w e r C o . , 640 So. 2 d 9 2 1 , 922 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . " 8 the and t h e Gaston named o f mandamus, to transfer of to 1081246, 1081254, Ex Alfa parte 1081265 M u t . G e n . I n s . C o . , 806 S o . 2 d 3 6 7 , 368 ( A l a . 2001). III. At fact t h e o u t s e t , we n o t e that i n the Stover Discussion that the p e t i t i o n e r s action the t r i a l an order determining that that a class action that such Bagley this v. C i t y Court and of Mobile, court point to the d i d not enter a c t i o n c o u l d be m a i n t a i n e d an order i s mandatory. 352 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 5 , 1118 (Ala. as In 1977), stated: "The r e c o r d i s s i l e n t as t o w h e t h e r a h e a r i n g was h a d on t h e c l a s s a c t i o n q u e s t i o n , a n d a b s e n t a n order of the t r i a l court determining the s u i t could be maintained as a c l a s s a c t i o n . An o r d e r of determination i s mandatory. 3B M o o r e ' s Federal P r a c t i c e , 5 23.50, a t p. 23-1101. The t r i a l court has t h e d u t y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c l a s s a c t i o n q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r o r n o t a m o t i o n i s made b y e i t h e r o f t h e parties. R o d r i g u e z v . E a s t T e x a s M o t o r F r e i g h t , 505 F . 2 d 40 ( 5 t h . C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) . I t must d e t e r m i n e , before e n t r y of judgment, t h a t a l l p r e r e q u i s i t e s of [Rule] 2 3 ( a ) a r e met a n d , i n a d d i t i o n , t h a t a t l e a s t o n e o f the three requirements of [Rule] 23(b) are satisfied. 3B M o o r e ' s F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e , 5 2 3 . 0 3 , a t p. 23-228; Rule 23(c)(1). These f i n d i n g s and d e t e r m i n a t i o n s w e r e n o t made, t h e r e f o r e t h e r e a r e b e f o r e u s o n l y t h e named p l a i n t i f f s " Because that there the t r i a l i s nothing court before determined 9 this whether Court to indicate the Stover action 1081246, 1081254, 1081265 c o u l d be m a i n t a i n e d plaintiff, as a c l a s s a c t i o n , o n l y i s before Stover § spread onto p r o p e r t y proper there t h a t venue 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) (1) property" i n F r a n k l i n County because, he says, the is proper biosolids were i n F r a n k l i n County and venue i s t h e r e f o r e under both prongs t h e named us. contends under Stover, the "events of § 6-3-7(a)(1). or omissions" and Specifically, he "real argues: " L i k e w i s e , s u b s e c t i o n (b) [ o f § 6-3-7] d o e s n o t limit i n a n y way t h e p r o n g o f s u b s e c t i o n (a)(1) making venue proper i n the county i n which a 'substantial part of r e a l property that i s the s u b j e c t o f t h e a c t i o n i s s i t u a t e d . ' S u b s e c t i o n (b) deals only with the residency of p l a i n t i f f s . The words 'real property' do n o t a p p e a r a n y w h e r e i n subsection (b). A c c o r d i n g l y , when e v a l u a t i n g t h e p r o p r i e t y of venue, i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e to look at the l o c a t i o n of the r e a l p r o p e r t y that ' i s the subject of t h e a c t i o n , ' and s i n c e t h i s i s a c l a s s a c t i o n , venue i s proper where such p r o p e r t y b e l o n g i n g to plaintiffs and t h e c l a s s members 'is situated.' Ala. Code 1975, § 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) . " (Emphasis The 7(a)(1) added.) petitioners, c a n n o t be b a s e d upon n o t h i n g owned by the other hand, i n t e r p r e t e d to allow more t h a n p a r t i e s not argue t h a t § 6-3-7(b) class on argue that 6-3- in a county the existence of property there, before provides the Court. f o r venue § Specifically, that only the residence r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n the o r i g i n a l 10 complaint is they of the considered 1081246, and 1081254, t h a t the class proper 1975, dispositive venue for property on not be is Stover Gaston note action was resides there that the where fails in venue supra, is H.J.T. v. owns p r o p e r t y seeks the Gaston 3d , 6-3-7 become p a r t i e s and actions brought specifies the to 11 t h a t venue in have Morgan court in As County; would the County, i t , exceeded i t s noted pleadings also entire Franklin p a r t i e s and in County note 3, pleadings in i n the 2 0 8 0 5 9 5 , O c t o b e r 9, other. 2009] 2009). proper i n Alabama c o u r t s a g a i n s t provides: Code to We action proper. ( A l a . C i v . App. a belongs there. trial undisputedly not spread Franklin show t h a t the is 6-3-7, A l a . in to S t a t e ex r e l . M.S.M., [Ms. Section section proper i n c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n s , the a c t i o n do So. leaving § were transferred to named F r a n k l i n County I t i s undisputed Synagro action nonetheless, discretion and the to F r a n k l i n County i s that biosolids initially although consolidated whether only connection which than considered. a c t i o n under unnamed c l a s s members. Gaston one o f a c l a s s member o t h e r issue the when S t o v e r ' s other the residence r e p r e s e n t a t i v e may The the 1081265 venue for corporations. civil That 1081246, be 1081254, 1081265 "(a) A l l c i v i l a c t i o n s a g a i n s t c o r p o r a t i o n s b r o u g h t i n any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c o u n t i e s : may "(1) In the county i n which a s u b s t a n t i a l part of the events or omissions giving r i s e to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of real property that 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 the county corporation's principal office s t a t e ; or of in the this "(3) In the county i n which the p l a i n t i f f resided, 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 , w h e r e 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 residence; 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 a n y 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 o f action. " ( b ) The r e s i d e n c e o f o n l y a n y p r o p e r l y j o i n e d named c l a s s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s may b e considered i n determining p r o p e r venue i n a c l a s s action. The r e s i d e n c y o f any p u t a t i v e o r a c t u a l member o f a c l a s s o t h e r t h a n a named r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s h a l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g p r o p e r v e n u e for a class a c t i o n . " (Emphasis added.) Stover, action in a resident Franklin of County Lawrence on 12 County, behalf of commenced himself this and a l l 1081246, 1081254, plaintiffs released 1081265 similarly o r dumped situated onto who their had had property by PFOA and the defendants. S t o v e r d i d n o t own p r o p e r t y i n F r a n k l i n County. say, any c a s e l a w our research jurisdiction plaintiff resides there) interpreting asserting point, a § 6-3-7(a)(1) putative class conclude this Court residence of that can a named jurisdictions i n analyzing action this follow in logic. Mazzocki 2 d 7 0 , 7 1 , 649 N.Y.S. which a New court action a named property a putative there class member i s no d e c i s i o n under decision § find in a only on resolving the issue, putative Fire 2 d 6 5 6 , 657 & Casualty C o . , 170 (N.Y. S u p . 1 9 9 6 ) , i n a d d r e s s e d an i d e n t i c a l 13 class e s p e c i a l l y persuasive the Farm t h e New the Other issue: "The q u e s t i o n p o s e d b e c o m e s w h e t h e r , i n a n a c t i o n t h a t has n o t y e t been c e r t i f i e d as a c l a s s a c t i o n , t h e p o s s i b l e e x i s t e n c e o f a c l a s s member r e s i d i n g i n a county i s s u f f i c i e n t to allow a p l a i n t i f f to l a y venue i n t h a t c o u n t y . " In on 6-3-7(b) representative. t h e venue We allow this a s f o r u m n o r owns i t s venue class from neither Although v. S t a t e Misc. York to i t i s self-evident base Suffice i t to (who i n a c o u n t y where o r owns p r o p e r t y . we holding to reveal i n t h e c o u n t y he h a s c h o s e n t o l a y venue resides that has f a i l e d PFOS York court stated: 1081246, 1081254, 1081265 "At t h i s s t a g e t h e a c t i o n has n o t been c e r t i f i e d as a c l a s s a c t i o n a n d , w i t h c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s ... can be t r e a t e d as an a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g s o l e l y t h e named p a r t y . I t may w e l l be t h a t t h e a c t i o n i s dismissed without reaching the merits or that class action status i s inappropriate. At t h i s juncture, therefore, i n conformity with the statutes the court c a n o n l y b a s e i t s v e n u e d e c i s i o n on t h e r e s i d e n c e o f the i d e n t i f i e d p a r t i e s . "The few F e d e r a l c a s e s w h i c h d i s c u s s t h e i s s u e of t h e venue of a c l a s s a c t i o n appear t o f o l l o w t h e r u l e a d o p t e d h e r e ; t h e y r e l y s o l e l y on t h e r e s i d e n c e of t h e named p a r t i e s to determine proper venue ( A p p l e t o n E l e c . Co. v . A d v a n c e - U n i t e d E x p r e s s w a y s , 494 F . 2 d 1 2 6 , 140 [ 7 t h C i r . 1 9 7 4 ] ; R e s e a r c h C o r p . v . Pfister Associated G r o w e r s , 301 F. S u p p . 4 9 7 , 501 [N.D. I l l . 1969]; Dale Electronics v. RCL E l e c t r o n i c s , 53 F.R.D. 5 3 1 , 538 [D.N.H. 1 9 7 1 ] ; c f . In r e N o r t h e r n D i s t . o f C a l . 'Dalkon S h i e l d ' lUD P r o d u c t s L i a b . L i t i g . , 526 F. S u p p . 8 8 7 , 9 0 6 , 9 0 9 ¬ 910 [N.D. C a l . 1 9 8 1 ] , r e v d on o t h e r g r o u n d s 693 F. 2d 847 [ 9 t h C i r . 1 9 8 2 ] ) . " 170 Misc. In 2 d a t 7 3 , 649 N . Y . S . 2 d a t 6 5 7 . the instant commenced an a c t i o n case, i n a county, connection to h i s claims. a proper forum. 6-3-7(a)(1) any c o u n t y of statewide Franklin Accordingly, named County, simply allegations 14 that h a s no to construe § v e n u e t o be p r o p e r by v i r t u e in a plaintiff, F r a n k l i n County i s not suggests would allow of the state class the only As n o t e d b y t h e p e t i t i o n e r s , as S t o v e r in Stover, of the complaint. assertion 1081246, 1081254, 1081265 When a n a c t i o n is not proper i n a county u n d e r b y § 6-3-7, A l a . C o d e may b e t r a n s f e r r e d which i s commenced provides, pursuant to Rule i n pertinent i n which 1975, venue the action 3 2 ( d ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., part: " ( 1 ) A s o f t h e Commencement o f t h e A c t i o n . When an a c t i o n i s commenced l a y i n g v e n u e i n t h e w r o n g county, the court, on timely motion o f any defendant, s h a l l transfer the action to the court i n which t h e a c t i o n might have been p r o p e r l y f i l e d and the case s h a l l p r o c e e d as though o r i g i n a l l y filed therein. fi " ( 3 ) P r o c e d u r e on T r a n s f e r . In the event the v e n u e o f t h e a c t i o n i s o r h a s become i m p r o p e r a n d venue i s a p p r o p r i a t e i n more t h a n one o t h e r c o u r t , a defendant sued alone o r m u l t i p l e d e f e n d a n t s , by unanimous agreement, s h a l l have t h e r i g h t t o s e l e c t such other court t o which the action shall be t r a n s f e r r e d and, where t h e r e a r e m u l t i p l e d e f e n d a n t s who a r e u n a b l e t o a g r e e u p o n a t r a n s f e r e e c o u r t , t h e court may t r a n s f e r t h e a c t i o n t o a n y s u c h o t h e r court." (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, which a plaintiff commenced "[t]here i s no p r o v i s i o n i n Rule may d e s i g n a t e t h e p r o p e r f o r u m the action prerogative Alfa M u t . G e n . I n s . C o . , 806 S o . 2 d a t 3 6 9 . the defendants solely moved with forum. that case, lies i n an i m p r o p e r 15 after In such the defendant." to transfer 82(d) by having a case, Ex p a r t e In the instant the Stover action to 1081246, 1081254, Morgan County. proper venue business stated any are forum other Stover an consent of consent the to discussed, in by an a This i t was the the answer and argument argues to this venue action to that Rule be did without that by Biological defendant, is Rule transfer case, revealed in we trial not merit. f o r a change of venue, brief 16 County-- regarding not been s e r v e d w i t h the c o m p l a i n t . his court, defendants. Stover named of the Because Stover a Morgan appropriate motion in the motions and Lawrence argument defendants' Inc., was in trial statute. Specifically, Alabama, issue are The to transfer additional transfer. places i n F r a n k l i n County, the that, t h e h e a r i n g on included to and During P r o c e s s o r s had conveniens requested r e q u i r e s t h a t the Processors also improper C i v . P. unanimous County. request, one is and documents p e r t a i n i n g t o action authority County principal defendants Stover non than raises 8 2 ( d ) , A l a . R. 82(d) the Stover's without forum a l l the Morgan The l o c a t e d i n Morgan t h a t v e n u e was was that action. relevant witnesses the conclude court for at on undisputed Alabama transferred apparently based is Stover claims however, It f o r the in C o u n t y , and 1081265 this Biological Stover opposition to has the 1081246, 1081254, petitions 1081265 f o r a writ o f mandamus a copy o f t h e summons a n d c o m p l a i n t , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t B i o l o g i c a l P r o c e s s o r s was s e r v e d o n June 29, 2009. until and after after However, the hearing transferring review i n this before the t r i a l i s limited court. during the hearing served when t h e t r i a l that clear to in legal right t h e Morgan the court that Franklin the Stover consented that i t s order to a have transferring Court. Court were I n c . , 859 admitted had n o t been on t h e c h a n g e - transfer. the petitioners action Our Conclusion t o an o r d e r Circuit action May 1 8 , P r o c e s s o r s was n o t a p a r t y a t t h e We i s further proper A c c o r d i n g l y , we g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n s the facts Processors entered Biological Circuit Gaston o f venue dated B e c a u s e i t was o p e n l y Biological IV. conclude court's order, Ex p a r t e P i k e F a b r i c a t i o n , and c o u l d n o t have We f o r a change t o only those 2d 1089, 1091 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . time was n o t e f f e c t e d t h e Stover a c t i o n t o Lawrence County. case of-venue motions, of process on t h e m o t i o n the entry of the t r i a l 2009, So. service 17 the Stover conclude Franklin County i t s order a action that and i s s u e a w r i t to vacate t o Lawrence in demonstrated venue County. directing transferring and f u r t h e r directing 1081246, that we court deny also 1081254, 1081265 t o t r a n s f e r t h e S t o v e r a c t i o n t o Morgan County, and that transfer part of Synagro's the Gaston action petition t o Morgan requesting we County. 1081246 -- P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. 1081254 -- P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. 1081265 WRIT that -- P E T I T I O N GRANTED I N PART AND DENIED I N PART; ISSUED. Cobb, Murdock, C . J . , and Lyons, Woodall, a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . 18 Stuart, Smith, Parker,

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.