Ex parte Excelsior Financial, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Jeanie S. Tillis and Lowell A. Tillis v. WM Page & Associates, Inc., d/b/a The Lifeline Program, et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/22/2010 N o t i c e : This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n before 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 Courts, 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 1081719 Ex p a r t e E x c e l s i o r F i n a n c i a l , I n c . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : J e a n i e S. T i l l i s a n d L o w e l l A. Tillis v. WM Page & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . , d/b/a The L i f e l i n e Program, e t a l . ) (Barbour LYONS, Circuit Court, CV-09-900015) Justice. Excelsior defendants Financial, Inc. ("Excelsior"), i n an a c t i o n f i l e d by Jeanie S. T i l l i s one of the and L o w e l l 1081719 A. Tillis for a i n the Barbour C i r c u i t writ court trial of to vacate dismiss mandamus the jurisdiction. We grant & March 18, Associates, and Fredrickson Fredrickson Brokerage (collectively a l l e g e d t h a t the caused the Tillises the for belief The against that the breach 27, of Rule court sued and two writ. ("Lifeline"), Jeffrey The Tillises that premiums the policies alleged, against wanton h i r i n g , a fiduciary Ala. personal 2 Dale life-insurance policies inducement; 12(b)(2), Page certain facts then purchase complaint and to personal E x c e l s i o r , WM Insurance would lacked the History a l l the suppression; training, and duty. 2 0 0 9 , E x c e l s i o r moved t o d i s m i s s i t under trial direct the Program fraudulent s u p e r v i s i o n ; and April issue Lifeline convert misrepresentation; negligent On and "Fredrickson"). Lifeline sum. defendants, petition to w h o l e - l i f e p o l i c i e s w i t h higher that a specified to to a of defendants misrepresented from term p o l i c i e s in Court lack Tillises The filed for petition the d/b/a this i t Procedural 2009, Inc., the has denying E x c e l s i o r ' s motion against I. On requesting i t s order claims Court, R. Civ. P., jurisdiction the claims asserting over i t . 1081719 The Tillises heard On oral July this 2009, then Court, order a the filed a s k i n g us denying Tillises file arguments 30, Excelsior responded on an motion, Excelsior's and motion court denied a petition to d i r e c t Excelsior's to f i l e the trial the July of court 8, 2009. motion. mandamus Court ordered ordered the Excelsior to response. their Factual complaint, the Background Tillises alleged that Excelsior and L i f e l i n e were f o r e i g n c o r p o r a t i o n s d o i n g b u s i n e s s by in Barbour Alabama County; that F r e d r i c k s o n Brokerage corporation J e f f r e y Dale paragraphs the with court to vacate i t s This and trial Excelsior's trial brief the on for a writ motion. answer and II. In to F r e d r i c k s o n was 8-9 Tillises doing and again business in Insurance Alabama; a r e s i d e n t of Barbour i n paragraphs 19-20 agent was and County. of the that In complaint alleged: "8. [ a n d 1 9 . ] On o r a b o u t A u g u s t 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , i n Barbour County, Alabama, Defendants approached [ t h e T i l l i s e s ] a b o u t p u r c h a s i n g [ t h e T i l l i s e s ' ] two life insurance p o l i c i e s . "9. [and 20.] Defendants represented to, i n d u c e d , and c o n v i n c e d [ t h e T i l l i s e s ] t h a t i f t h e y c o n v e r t e d t h e i r two e x i s t i n g t e r m i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s i n t o whole l i f e p o l i c i e s , Defendant L i f e l i n e would p u r c h a s e t h e s e p o l i c i e s f o r t h e sum o f $ 9 4 , 0 0 0 . " 3 an 1081719 According to the life-insurance additional complaint, policies premium representations policies, but to costs that to and refused conversion policies. The and fraud promise Tillises also on would to then a incurred defendants' purchase the the policies. defendants sale alleged two alleged that there among t h e of their and the purchase the T i l l i s e s p r a c t i c e of converted reliance Lifeline Lifeline the Tillises whole-life policies in Without s t a t i n g s p e c i f i c s , a pattern the of the was relating Tillises' i n paragraph 16 of the complaint: " A t a l l r e l e v a n t t i m e s , e a c h D e f e n d a n t was an a g e n t and/or r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of each other Defendant. In c o m m i t t i n g the a c t s a l l e g e d h e r e i n , the Defendants acted within the scope of their agency and/or employment and were acting with the consent, p e r m i s s i o n , a u t h o r i z a t i o n and k n o w l e d g e o f a l l o t h e r D e f e n d a n t s and perpetrated and/or c o n s p i r e d with a n d / o r a i d e d and a b e t t e d t h e u n l a w f u l , i m p r o p e r , and fraudulent acts described herein." To support i t s motion certificate from the maintained records foreign corporations Excelsior. Hill, the to E x c e l s i o r submitted Alabama S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e by the secretary did not include Excelsior also i t s chief dismiss, financial submitted officer, 4 that for both domestic any an stating records affidavit chief related of executive a and to Suzanne officer, 1081719 and president, and an affidavit manager. The affidavits Excelsior and its relationship Excelsior, of business a Georgia in for sale licensed to conduct i n the in Alabama. Neither conduct Hill Hill and during action, life-insurance Tillises' received Hill that office, for five Excelsior was owned and an It only Alabama $8,000 i n commissions Dixon denied the the Tillises allegations or its r e g a r d i n g the 5 the own pay in employees. Alabama to filing sale. to Hill's of the sales of residents: from not telephone i n o n l y two unrelated i t s employees, to According of Excelsior, not services two traveled is does not its preceding by does Excelsior involved place life-insurance address, a Excelsior's years regarding Excelsior advertised ever office a principal Alabama. Excelsior. policies a total contact with never facts existing a mailing have transaction and has are the with i n Alabama. Dixon nor in its Tillises. secondary market. Dixon business affidavit, Tillises' and the brokers a bank account Alabama Dixon, following with business p r o p e r t y o r m a i n t a i n an taxes the Melanie corporation Georgia, policies number, or state of the Excelsior those sales. in the complaint agents had initiated possible sale of their 1081719 life-insurance Excelsior, Hill i t s employees, suppressed agreement agency policies. information t o do s o . relationship and Dixon also or i t s agents m i s l e d from Hill them, and Dixon existed between or denied the T i l l i s e s , entered further that into denied Excelsior any that any and t h e o t h e r defendants. According Charlie to Tillises' or assist policies. Meagher Nothing in Excelsior was c o n t a c t e d a g e n t i n G e o r g i a , who finding a buyer i n the materials shows when Meagher that Georgia--from April extent of neither Excelsior the time 18, 2008, d i r e c t l y with first when contacted Meagher Fredrickson--in Excelsior's Hill's first Excelsior. work contacted requested Alabama. with f o r the Hill Excelsior The p r e c i s e Fredrickson and Meagher--in Excelsior that to the T i l l i s e s worked s o l e l y through he by asked presented Court d e s c r i b e s Meagher's r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Dixon stated in and Dixon, Meagher, a l i f e - i n s u r a n c e Excelsior this to H i l l until work n a t u r e and are unclear; nor Dixon's a f f i d a v i t describe the r e l a t i o n s h i p any d e t a i l . In receive her a f f i d a v i t , Hill any c o m p e n s a t i o n stated or send 6 that Excelsior a n y money d i d not t o Alabama with 1081719 respect to the Lifeline--the Ultimately, and that in Lifeline made on the the sale. Tillises' basis after and two submitted a July 2008, stating that 1, Dixon was Lifeline, policies. Second, Fredrickson to Fredrickson sent which Lowell to E x c e l s i o r Excelsior policies. information It to the also Dixon from had to Tillises dated an submitted April Tillises authorized Excelsior. 3, application stated third and to Tillis the Fredrickson offers from Tillises' facsimile form. their the Tillises 2008, disclosed and the the a a sold. two purchase completed, the both motion to dismiss, e-mail Excelsior regarding been First, offers received from J e a n i e exhibits. Excelsior Tillis Dixon sending Fredrickson presumably to complaint. between E x c e l s i o r With t h e i r response to E x c e l s i o r ' s submitted the Excelsior the p o l i c i e s had Tillises of policies the T i l l i s e s ' p o l i c i e s , Hill communication a telephone c a l l J a n u a r y 2009, the a d i f f e r e n t buyer. the o n l y d i r e c t was of d i d not purchase found commission Tillises sale transaction Excelsior $1,700 proposed from in which That form, information to life-insurance parties to release 1 Because of our d i s p o s i t i o n of t h i s p e t i t i o n , i t i s unnecessary to address the i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d by the T i l l i s e s ' 1 7 1081719 III. Standard of Review " ' " T h e w r i t o f 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 when t h e r e i s : 1 ) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; 2 ) an imperative 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 ; and 4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d jurisdiction of the c o u r t . ' Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S e r v . Stations, I n c . , 628 So. 2 d 5 0 1 , 503 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; s e e a l s o Ex p a r t e Z i g l a r , 669 So. 2d 1 3 3 , 134 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . " Ex p a r t e C a r t e r , [807 So. 2 d 534,] 536 [ ( A l a . 2001)].' "Ex p a r t e M c W i l l i a m s , 812 So. 2d 3 1 8 , 321 (Ala. 2 0 0 1 ) . 'An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t c o n s i d e r s de n o v o a t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on a p a r t y ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k of p e r s o n a l jurisdiction.' Elliott v. Van K l e e f , 830 So. 2d 7 2 6 , 729 (Ala. 2002)." Ex parte Bufkin, 936 So. 2d IV. 1042, 1044-45 (Ala. 2006). Analysis "The extent of an Alabama court's personal jurisdiction over a person or corporation is g o v e r n e d b y R u l e 4.2, A l a . R. C i v . P., Alabama's 'long-arm rule,' bounded by the limits of due p r o c e s s u n d e r t h e f e d e r a l and s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n s . S i e b e r v . C a m p b e l l , 810 So. 2d 641 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . R u l e 4 . 2 ( b ) , as amended i n 2 0 0 4 , s t a t e s : "'(b) B a s i s f o r O u t - o f - S t a t e S e r v i c e . An a p p r o p r i a t e b a s i s e x i s t s f o r s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s o u t s i d e of t h i s s t a t e upon a p e r s o n attempt to i n c l u d e i n the record before this Court the a d d i t i o n a l evidence they o f f e r e d at the u n t r a n s c r i b e d h e a r i n g on J u l y 8, 2 0 0 9 . E x c e l s i o r ' s m o t i o n t o s t r i k e t h i s evidence i s , t h e r e f o r e , moot. 8 1081719 o r e n t i t y i n a n y a c t i o n i n t h i s s t a t e when the p e r s o n or e n t i t y has s u c h c o n t a c t s w i t h this s t a t e that the p r o s e c u t i o n of the a c t i o n a g a i n s t the person or e n t i t y i n t h i s state is not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the U n i t e d S t a t e s ' "In accordance w i t h the p l a i n language of Rule 4.2, both before and after the 2004 amendment, Alabama's long-arm rule c o n s i s t e n t l y has been i n t e r p r e t e d by t h i s C o u r t t o e x t e n d t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f A l a b a m a c o u r t s t o t h e p e r m i s s i b l e l i m i t s o f due p r o c e s s . D u k e v . Y o u n g , 496 So. 2d 37 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ; DeSotacho, I n c . v . V a l n i t I n d u s . , I n c . , 350 So. 2 d 447 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) . As t h i s C o u r t r e i t e r a t e d i n Ex parte M c I n n i s , 820 So. 2d 7 9 5 , 802 ( A l a . 2001 ) (quoting Sudduth v . H o w a r d , 64 6 So. 2d 664 , 667 (Ala. 1 9 9 4 ) ) , and even more r e c e n t l y i n Hiller I n v e s t m e n t s I n c . v . I n s u l t e c h G r o u p , I n c . , 957 So. 2 d 1 1 1 1 , 1115 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) : ' R u l e 4.2, A l a . R. C i v . P., e x t e n d s t h e p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e A l a b a m a c o u r t s t o t h e l i m i t o f due p r o c e s s u n d e r t h e f e d e r a l and s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n s . ' (Emphasis added.) "This Court d i s c u s s e d the extent of the p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o f A l a b a m a c o u r t s i n E l l i o t t v. Van K l e e f , 830 So. 2d 7 2 6 , 730 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) : " ' T h i s C o u r t h a s i n t e r p r e t e d t h e due process guaranteed under the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n t o be c o e x t e n s i v e w i t h t h e due p r o c e s s guaranteed under the U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . See A l a b a m a W a t e r p r o o f i n g Co. v . H a n b y , 431 So. 2 d 1 4 1 , 145 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , and D e S o t a c h o , I n c . v. V a l n i t I n d u s . , I n c . , 350 S o . 2d 4 4 7 , 449 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) . See a l s o Rule 4.2, A l a . R. Civ. P., Committee Comments on 1977 Complete Revision f o l l o w i n g R u l e 4.4, u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g "ARCP 4.2." ("Subparagraph ( I ) was i n c l u d e d by the Committee to i n s u r e t h a t a b a s i s of 9 1081719 jurisdiction was included in Alabama p r o c e d u r e t h a t was c o e x t e n s i v e with the scope of the federal due process clause...."). "'The Due Process Clause of the F o u r t e e n t h Amendment p e r m i t s a f o r u m s t a t e to s u b j e c t a n o n r e s i d e n t defendant to i t s courts only when that defendant has sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum state. International Shoe Co. v. W a s h i n g t o n , 326 U.S. 3 1 0 , 3 1 6 , 66 S. C t . 154 , 90 L. E d . 95 (1 945) . The critical question with regard to the nonresident defendant's contacts is whether the contacts are such that the nonresident defendant "'should reasonably anticipate being haled into court'" i n the forum s t a t e . B u r g e r K i n g C o r p . v . R u d z e w i c z , 471 U.S. 4 6 2 , 4 7 3 , 105 S. C t . 2 1 7 4 , 85 L. E d . 2d 528 (1985), quoting World-Wide V o l k s w a g e n C o r p . v . W o o d s o n , 444 U.S. 2 8 6 , 2 95, 100 S. C t . 5 5 9 , 62 L. E d . 2 d 490 (1980).'" Ex p a r t e (Ala. D B I , I n c . , [Ms. 1 0 7 1 4 3 3 , May 2009)(footnote "Furthermore, 1, 2 0 0 9 ] So. 3d omitted). this Court has explained: "'... The s u f f i c i e n c y of a c o n t a c t s a r e a s s e s s e d as f o l l o w s : party's "'"Two t y p e s o f c o n t a c t s c a n form a basis for personal jurisdiction: general contacts and specific contacts. General contacts, which give rise to general personal jurisdiction, consist of the defendant's contacts with the forum state 10 , 1081719 t h a t are u n r e l a t e d to the cause of action and that are both 'continuous and systematic.' Helicopteros Nacionales de C o l o m b i a , S.A. v . H a l l , 4 66 U.S. 408 , 414 n. 9, 4 1 5 , 104 S. C t . 1868, 80 L. E d . 2 d 404 (1984); [citations omitted]. Specific contacts, which give rise to s p e c i f i c j u r i s d i c t i o n , c o n s i s t of the d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t a c t s w i t h the forum s t a t e t h a t are r e l a t e d to the cause of a c t i o n . B u r g e r K i n g C o r p . v . R u d z e w i c z , 471 U.S. 462, 4 7 2 - 7 5 , 105 S. C t . 2 1 7 4 , 85 L. E d . 2d 528 (1985). Although the related c o n t a c t s need not be c o n t i n u o u s and s y s t e m a t i c , they must r i s e t o s u c h a l e v e l as t o cause the defendant to a n t i c i p a t e being haled into court i n the forum s t a t e . I d . " " ' E x p a r t e P h a s e I I I C o n s t r . , I n c . , 723 So. 2d 1263, 1266 (Ala.1998) (Lyons, J., c o n c u r r i n g i n the r e s u l t ) . ... "'In the case of e i t h e r g e n e r a l i n personam jurisdiction or specific in personam j u r i s d i c t i o n , " [ t ] h e ' s u b s t a n t i a l c o n n e c t i o n ' between t h e d e f e n d a n t and t h e forum state necessary for a finding of m i n i m u m c o n t a c t s m u s t come a b o u t b y an action of the defendant purposefully d i r e c t e d toward the forum S t a t e . " A s a h i Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of C a l i f o r n i a , 480 U.S. 1 0 2 , 1 1 2 , 107 S. C t . 1 0 2 6 , 94 L. E d . 2 d 92 ( 1 9 8 7 ) . ' "Elliott [ v . V a n K l e e f ] , 830 So. [ ( A l a . 2002)] (emphasis added)." 11 2d [726,] 730-31 1081719 Sverdrup Tech., 200 9] So. The Inc. 3d v. Robinson, that complaint m u s t be taken should denied because did not deny regarding a 2d (Ala. of the t r u e and the The and Excelsior a l l e g a t i o n s of Tillises Ex their that Excelsior's petition affidavits wantonness, (Ala. 2005), Puccio, err Court rely on parte Ex complaint and parte Reindel, presented the suppression, concluded a motion to In that case, the the officer through an jurisdiction officer failed this i n denying officer. of acted to address the t h a t the dismiss breach Puccio, 963 So. of 923 2d 614 court on an ego. did concluded that not motion to dismiss and allowing did the d i s c o v e r y on t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i s s u e . In Reindel, dismiss for this lack Court of reviewed personal 12 corporate personal that the alter err 923 the So. of ego, this in denying plaintiff the officer allegations an court a allegation jurisdictional trial by Because regarding h i s acts through the trial alleged complaint based alter filed complaint to 23, 2007). In not duty. 1069 as substantive negligence, fiduciary So. the October ( A l a . 200 9 ) . argue 1071113, allegations , Tillises be [Ms. the Court the to conduct 2d a t 1076-77. d e n i a l of jurisdiction a motion where the 1081719 p l a i n t i f f had the alleged jurisdiction defendants. contours of This conspiracy affidavits submitted to " ' d i d not dismiss allegations on jurisdiction [was] party's brief) concluded: jurisdiction or rebut, or even [the based.'" the 963 jurisdiction." Ex parte Barton, Court of, 976 So. So. So. 2d alleges failure in a denial 963 address, 2d 2d or motion key factual argument 622 for (quoting This Court conspiracy-based t o deny by affidavit participation in, of a motion to d i s m i s s at 624. 438, 445 In a a for subsequent explained: (Ala. 2007), "'"'Bald speculation' or a 'conclusionary statement' t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s are c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s i s insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under a c o n s p i r a c y theory. I n s t e a d , the plaintiff must p l e a d w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y 'the c o n s p i r a c y as w e l l as t h e o v e r t a c t s w i t h i n t h e f o r u m t a k e n i n f u r t h e r a n c e of the c o n s p i r a c y . ' D o o l e y v. United Technologies C o r p . , 786 F. S u p p . 65, 78 (D.D.C. 1 9 9 2 ) . " ' Ex p a r t e M c I n n i s , 820 So. 2 d 7 9 5 , 806-07 ( A l a . 2001) ( q u o t i n g J u n g q u i s t v. S h e i k h S u l t a n B i n K h a l i f a A l N a h y a n , 115 F . 3 d 1020, 1031 (D.C. C i r . 1997) (some c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ) . " 13 the their the at the that emphasis added). complaint existence result case, noted plaintiff's] with particularity, the but among "define by t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o s u p p o r t (emphasis o m i t t e d ; conspiracy w i l l of e x p r e s s l y d e c l i n e d to jurisdiction" which "[W]here deposition lack Court b a s e d on a c o n s p i r a c y this 1081719 First, the jurisdiction i t clear more than of aided that "bald such the Tillises and and the u n l a w f u l , particularity within the Barton, 976 Second, forum So. "the 2d this at in of the plaintiff's require nonjurisdictional and as w e l l as of the be statement." conspired improper, has must d e f e n d a n t s were and/or agents with and/or fraudulent acts "'plead[ed] the overt acts conspiracy."'" 445. statements to rebut in Puccio and Reindel the a l l e g a t i o n s of the r e l a t e to the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a l l e g a t i o n s complaint. defendants conspiracy "conclusory furtherance Court's complaint a This Court the T i l l i s e s have not r e g a r d i n g the defendant's duty plaintiff's a conspiracy taken conspiracy-based in Reindel. and "perpetrated abetted alleged a l l e g e d t h a t the d e s c r i b e d " i n the c o m p l a i n t , with not a l l e g a t i o n s of speculation" another one have as d i d t h e p l a i n t i f f s made Although Tillises to Neither present Puccio evidence a l l e g a t i o n s of a c o m p l a i n t , nor Reindel rebutting as the the Tillises suggest. This Court parties' as e x p l a i n e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a n a l y s i s and r e s p e c t i v e burdens follows. trial has "The c o u r t has plaintiff personal on has a personal-jurisdiction 14 issue the burden of p r o v i n g t h a t jurisdiction over the defendant. the the Ex 1081719 parte C o v i n g t o n P i k e Dodge, J.C. Duke & Assocs. 194, 196 I n c . , 904 S o . 2 d 226 Gen. C o n t r a c t o r s , (Ala. 2004)." I n c . v . W e s t , 991 S o . 2 d ( A l a . 2008). "'"In considering a Rule 12(b)(2), A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f o r w a n t of personal jurisdiction, a court must c o n s i d e r as t r u e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t not c o n t r o v e r t e d by the defendant's affidavits, Robinson v. G i a r m a r c o & B i l l , P.C., 74 F . 3 d 253 ( 1 1 t h Cir. 1 9 9 6 ) , and Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network P r o d u c t i o n s , I n c . , 90 2 F . 2 d 829 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) , a n d 'where t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t and t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s affidavits conflict, t h e ... c o u r t must construe a l l reasonable inferences i n favor o f t h e p l a i n t i f f . ' R o b i n s o n , 74 F . 3 d a t 255 ( q u o t i n g Madara v. H a l l , 916 F . 2 d 1 5 1 0 , 1514 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) ) . " ' "Wenger T r e e S e r v . v . R o y a l T r u c k & E q u i p . , I n c . , 853 S o . 2 d 8 88 , 8 94 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e M c I n n i s , 820 S o . 2 d 7 9 5 , 798 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ) . However, i f t h e d e f e n d a n t makes a p r i m a f a c i e e v i d e n t i a r y s h o w i n g t h a t t h e C o u r t h a s no p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , 'the p l a i n t i f f i s t h e n r e q u i r e d t o s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e jurisdictional a l l e g a t i o n s i n the complaint by a f f i d a v i t s o r o t h e r c o m p e t e n t p r o o f , a n d he may n o t merely r e i t e r a t e the f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s i n the complaint.' Mercantile Capital, LP v. Federal T r a n s t e l , I n c . , 193 F. S u p p . 2 d 1 2 4 3 , 1247 (N.D. Ala. 2 0 0 2 ) ( c i t i n g F u t u r e T e c h . T o d a y , I n c . v . OSF Healthcare S y s . , 218 F . 3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 4 9 (11th C i r . 2000)). See a l s o H a n s e n v . N e u m u e l l e r GmbH, 163 F.R.D. 4 7 1 , 4 7 4 - 7 5 (D. D e l . 1 9 9 5 ) ( ' W h e n a d e f e n d a n t f i l e s a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s p u r s u a n t t o F e d . R. C i v . P. 12(b)(2), and supports that motion with affidavits, plaintiff i s required to controvert t h o s e a f f i d a v i t s w i t h h i s own a f f i d a v i t s or other competent evidence i n order to s u r v i v e the motion.') 15 1081719 (citing Resorts, Ex parte (Ala. Time Ltd., Covington 2004) trial burden supra. Before support failed to added; that their allegations relate that specific personal did satisfy do Tillises' to 229-30 and See we 226, f a c i e showing the Covington something complaint personal not jurisdictional arguments presented i t s petition, that 2d omitted). substantiating the So. Tillises the complaint. do--analyze 904 general that t u r n i n g to the of Inc., footnote both then Club v. Atlantic (3d C i r . 1 9 8 4 ) ) . " i t made a p r i m a i t and of of Dodge, lacked over allegations in argues court jurisdiction their Pike (emphasis Excelsior the Share Vacation 735 F . 2 d 6 1 , 63 Pike Dodge, by E x c e l s i o r Excelsior for has specific jurisdiction over Excelsior. Paragraph 4 of the complaint foreign corporation doing Paragraphs 8-9 and 19-20 commission of f r a u d u l e n t alleges business of alleges that Excelsior i s a by a g e n t i n B a r b o u r the complaint acts i n Barbour County. County. allege Paragraph that " e a c h d e f e n d a n t was an a g e n t a n d / o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f e a c h o t h e r D e f e n d a n t , and t h a t ' [ i ] n c o m m i t t i n g the a c t s a l l e g e d h e r e i n , the Defendants acted w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h e i r a g e n c y a n d / o r employment and were a c t i n g w i t h the consent, p e r m i s s i o n , authorization and knowledge of a l l other Defendants, and 16 the 16 1081719 p e r p e t r a t e d and/or c o n s p i r e d w i t h and/or aided and a b e t t e d t h e u n l a w f u l , i m p r o p e r , and f r a u d u l e n t a c t s described herein." The and affidavits submitted on and, paragraphs burden that 4, 8, 904 Excelsior 16, 2d the at to and the agency E x c e l s i o r by for as to i t the to to the another writ over sufficiently the of evidence Covington they failed to the extent to do. by d i s m i s s a l of that to Pike filed mandamus complaint four corners alleges conspiracy. E x c e l s i o r to of c o n s p i r a c y specificity. with The to present right potential jurisdiction dealing in complaint. the This other personal have been based relationship. remains 229-30. of Hill allegations relationship. a l l e g e d i n the Confining ourselves allegation the Tillises 229-30. petition was agency requisite 20 establishes a clear legal jurisdiction there refute 19, shifted So. complaint u p o n an 9, e s t a b l i s h an Therefore, the therefore, therefore would Dodge, at of D i x o n e x p r e s s l y d e n y an a g e n c y r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e defendants the behalf See Consequently, conspiracy the the 17 for personal the complaint that H o w e v e r , as d i s c u s s e d i n the complaint there complaint, basis extent Covington that of the Pike i s nothing court i s devoid Dodge, 904 i n the must c o n s i d e r above, of the So. 2d complaint as true 1081719 and that therefore controvert by the the argues e x t e n s i v e l y parties does not directed toward with resulted from persons. of However, agency, w h i c h were Tillises, does independent its the not of an actions allegations, on Excelsior agency we need and other without any evidence action unilateral complaint, refuted the any Alabama the contain toward that show purposefully Alabama burden to affidavit. Excelsior by places presented by that Excelsior its activity than the of third allegations c o n t r a d i c t i o n from allegations that Alabama. In the not the evidence the Excelsior, relationship, purposefully analyze contacts absence as directed of such Excelsior suggests. B e c a u s e we have c o n c l u d e d t h a t a clear legal right to the to the e x t e n t t h a t the d i s m i s s a l of the does E x c e l s i o r b a s e d on and because purposefully the not complaint to i t jurisdiction agency r e l a t i o n s h i p ; because alleged conspiracy established c o m p l a i n t as complaint alleged personal o v e r E x c e l s i o r b a s e d u p o n an complaint E x c e l s i o r has personal with does directed i t s actions 18 the not jurisdiction requisite allege over specificity; that toward Alabama, the Excelsior independent 1081719 of any agency r e l a t i o n s h i p , right h a s shown a clear legal to relief. V. For and Excelsior the reasons previously direct the Excelsior's claims Conclusion motion against PETITION Cobb, trial court stated, to to dismiss we g r a n t vacate the p e t i t i o n i t s order and t o d i s m i s s denying the T i l l i s e s ' Excelsior. GRANTED; WRIT C . J . , and S t u a r t , ISSUED. Bolin, 19 and Murdock, J J . , concur.

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.