Ex parte J.E. Estes Wood Company, Inc. and A.A. Nettles, Sr. Properties, Ltd. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Shawnee Terminal Railroad v. J.E. Estes Wood Company, Inc., et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/29/2010 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 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 1081728 Ex p a r t e J . E . E s t e s Wood Company, I n c . , and A.A. N e t t l e s , S r . P r o p e r t i e s , L t d . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Shawnee T e r m i n a l Railroad v. J . E . E s t e s Wood Company, (Monroe C i r c u i t WOODALL, Court, Inc., e t a l . ) CV-09-900018) Justice. J.E. management Estes Wood company, Company, Inc. ("Estes"), a n d A.A. N e t t l e s , a timber- Sr. Properties, Ltd. 1081728 ("Nettles"), this Court the Monroe C i r c u i t directing Court their motion 440, the petition against to action them. filed of We I. The dismiss, pursuant facts Shawnee grant the F a c t u a l and are a complaint Southern The writ to vacate an petition On complaint "a common c a r r i e r r a i l Beatrice, Alabama" contained the naming alleged line ("the following 1975, denying § writ. Background March 4, 2009, as Court line"). relevant factual The Shawnee for the Estes defendants r u n n i n g from Flomaton, and the owner of Alabama, to complaint averments: " 1 3 . The r a i l l i n e r u n s g e n e r a l l y n o r t h - t o - s o u t h t h r o u g h a s e c t i o n o f p r o p e r t y owned by [ N e t t l e s ] and l o c a t e d i n Monroe County, Alabama. The p o r t i o n o f the r a i l l i n e t h a t runs through [ N e t t l e s ' s ] p r o p e r t y i n c l u d e s a 275 f t . wooden b r i d g e , w h i c h spans a r a v i n e a n d t r i b u t a r y o f w a t e r on t h e p r o p e r t y . The b r i d g e i s c o m m o n l y r e f e r r e d t o as ' B r i d g e 38.' fi " 1 5 . On o r a b o u t M a r c h 7 , 2 0 0 7 , [ N e t t l e s and Estes] tried to perform a 'controlled burn' on [Nettles's] property. However, [ t h e y ] l o s t c o n t r o l of the f i r e . The f i r e i g n i t e d B r i d g e 38 a n d the surrounding tracks. The fire totally destroyed B r i d g e 38 a n d t h e s u r r o u n d i n g t r a c k s . " 2 6-5¬ ("Shawnee") i s s u e the t h a t S h a w n e e was rail mandamus order Railroad and Procedural of Alabama, of t o A l a . Code Terminal undisputed. a i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t District Nettles. for also 1081728 The complaint theories of negligence, liability, complaint Two sought (1) compensatory violation of (3) w a n t o n n e s s , and days later, 18 The referred on state t h e same action"). sought t h e same earlier filed Shawnee, defendants The l a t e r relief complaint i t "filed litigate dismissed f o r lack two after years action 1992(a), filed under the f i r e . " by this filed 2009, Shawnee i n t h e Monroe C i r c u i t referred theories action] event action. as matter action d i d the a forum t o federal action was more than jurisdiction Shawnee's b r i e f , Court According to to preserve the a t o as " t h e complaint i n the state t h e same of subject strict action." i n the federal i n the commenced (2) t o as " t h e f e d e r a l (hereinafter [the state i t s claims § on 6, March c o m p l a i n t b a s e d on t h e same f a c t s against U.S.C. damages (4) n e g l i g e n c e p e r s e , (5) (6) t r e s p a s s . i s hereinafter and/or p u n i t i v e at 2 (emphasis added). On March district court subject-matter to dismiss 27, 2009, to Nettles dismiss the jurisdiction. the federal action and E s t e s federal In A p r i l action the Estes federal f o r lack 2009, w h i l e was p e n d i n g , 3 moved of the motion and Nettles 1081728 moved t o d i s m i s s § the state 6-5-440, t h e a b a t e m e n t a c t i o n , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code statute, which 1975, provides: "No plaintiff is entitled to prosecute two a c t i o n s i n t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e a t t h e same t i m e f o r t h e same c a u s e a n d a g a i n s t t h e same p a r t y . In s u c h a c a s e , t h e d e f e n d a n t may r e q u i r e t h e p l a i n t i f f to elect w h i c h he w i l l prosecute, i f commenced s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , and t h e pendency o f t h e f o r m e r i s a g o o d d e f e n s e t o t h e l a t t e r i f commenced a t d i f f e r e n t times." (Emphasis In added.) response Shawnee moved to the motions the Monroe to dismiss Circuit Court the state to stay a c t i o n pending r e s o l u t i o n of the motion to dismiss filed federal action. On July 27, Court denied the motions to dismiss stay the action." this the On Court state federal state action September for a writ action. Two 4, United States 2009, the t h e Monroe and g r a n t e d resolution Estes the of state earlier Circuit the motion to the and N e t t l e s [federal] petitioned o f mandamus, d i r e c t i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l weeks l a t e r , d i s t r i c t court has a p p e a l e d from t h a t the "until 2009, action, dismissed on S e p t e m b e r the f e d e r a l judgment, and t h a t Court of Appeals 4 of 18, 2009, t h e action. Shawnee appeal i s pending i n f o r the Eleventh Circuit. 1081728 II. "[A] writ o f mandamus requires the p e t i t i o n e r the relief sought, Discussion i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y to demonstrate o r an abuse a clear, of d i s c r e t i o n . " remedy, which legal right to Ex p a r t e H a r b o r Homes, I n c . , 7 98 S o . 2 d 6 5 6 , 660 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . Palm Mandamus is the appropriate remedy t o c o r r e c t a t r i a l court's failure to properly § Chapman Nursing apply 6-5-440. Home, I n c . , 903 S o . 2 d 813 View Resort, See Ex p a r t e ( A l a .2004); L . P . , 729 S o . 2 d 8 4 9 , 852 Ex p a r t e Breman Lake ( A l a . 1999). "[Section 6-5-440], by i t s p l a i n language, f o r b i d s a p a r t y f r o m p r o s e c u t i n g two a c t i o n s f o r t h e 'same c a u s e ' a n d a g a i n s t t h e 'same p a r t y . ' This C o u r t h a s p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t an a c t i o n p e n d i n g i n a f e d e r a l court f a l l s w i t h i n the coverage of t h i s Code s e c t i o n : "'"The p h r a s e ' c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e , ' as u s e d i n § 6-5-440, i n c l u d e s a l l f e d e r a l c o u r t s l o c a t e d i n Alabama. This Court has c o n s i s t e n t l y refused to allow a person to p r o s e c u t e an a c t i o n i n a s t a t e c o u r t w h i l e another action on t h e same cause and a g a i n s t t h e same p a r t i e s i s p e n d i n g i n a federal court i n this State."'" Ex parte 2008 So. Norfolk Southern Ry., 992 So. 2d 1286, 1289 ( A l a . ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h A l a b a m a F o u n d . , 788 2 d 1 6 1 , 164 ( A l a .2000), 577 S o . 2 d 4 4 0 , 442 quoting (Ala. 1991)). 5 i n t u r n Weaver v . Hood, The d i s m i s s a l o f an earlier 1081728 filed federal during the action pendency D r a p e r & Son, does of an ( A l a . 1984) ("An so long party's It as a or is requires the dismissal the ordered the Nettles, statute dismissal" (emphasis right undisputed Estes and from 6-5-440 that inapplicable dismissal. Inc., 454 So. L.A. 2d 506, to appeal has not court yet been expired."). and Estes appeal § a c t i o n i s deemed p e n d i n g i n f e d e r a l action, stay render I n c . v. W h e e l a b r a t o r - F r y e , 508 exhausted not that and by of the trial satisfy the We of by applies contend state the a matter added). 6-5-440 Nettles is satisfied as § action. court does statute. a "stay of discretion. agree w i t h that Estes In not, to the the state statute other words, according Shawnee i n s i s t s this case in that lieu Shawnee's b r i e f , and at Nettles. " S e c t i o n 6-5-440, as i n i t i a l l y c o d i f i e d i n A l a . C o d e 1 9 0 7 , § 2 4 5 1 , was 'a t r a n s c r i p t o f s e c t i o n 4331 o f t h e C i v i l Code o f G e o r g i a . ' E x p a r t e D u n l a p , 209 Ala. 4 5 3 , 4 5 5 , 96 So. 4 4 1 , 442 (1923). See current v e r s i o n a t Ga. C o d e A n n . § 9-2-5(a) ( M i c h i e 1982). However, these statutes merely codified the p r i n c i p l e e x p r e s s e d i n t h e c o m m o n - l a w m a x i m : 'Nemo debet b i s v e x a r i ( s i c o n s t e t c u r i a e quod s i t ) pro u n a e t e a d e m c a u s a , ' t h a t i s : 'No man o u g h t t o be twice t r o u b l e d or harassed ( i f i t appear to the c o u r t t h a t he i s ) , f o r one and t h e same c a u s e . ' O ' B a r r v . T u r n e r , 16 A l a . A p p . 65, 6 7 - 6 8 , 75 So. 2 7 1 , 274 ( 1 9 1 7 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 200 A l a . 6 9 9 , 76 So. 997 (1917) . This r u l e was well established in 6 to of 13 1081728 A l a b a m a l o n g b e f o r e i t was first codified in Ala. Code 1907, § 2451. I n F o s t e r v . N a p i e r , 73 A l a . 595 (1883), f o r example, t h i s Court e x p l a i n e d : "'The d o c t r i n e i s t h u s s t a t e d i n 1 B a c . Ab. 2 8 , M.: "The law abhors m u l t i p l i c i t y of actions; and, therefore, whenever i t a p p e a r s on r e c o r d , t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f has sued out two writs against the same defendant, f o r t h e same t h i n g , t h e s e c o n d w r i t s h a l l a b a t e ; f o r i f i t were a l l o w e d t h a t a man s h o u l d be t w i c e a r r e s t e d , o r t w i c e a t t a c h e d b y h i s g o o d s f o r t h e same t h i n g , b y t h e same r e a s o n he m i g h t s u f f e r i n i n f i n i t u m ; ... i f t h e r e was a w r i t i n b e i n g at the time of s u i n g out the second, i t i s p l a i n t h e s e c o n d was v e x a t i o u s and i l l ab initio."' -111 - i ^ - ; - ! - - ; ^ II I " F o s t e r v . N a p i e r , 73 A l a . 5 9 5 , 603 ( 1 8 8 3 ) ( q u o t i n g 1 M. B a c o n , A New A b r i d g m e n t o f t h e Law 28 (1843)). I n f a c t , t h e r u l e was w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d a s e a r l y a s a 1 4 6 1 , f o r i t was t h o r o u g h l y d i s c u s s e d a n d a p p l i e d i n i Y.B. 39 H e n r y V I , p l . 12 (1461), case quoted in t o t o , C o m m o n w e a l t h v . C h u r c h i l l , 5 M a s s . 174 (1809); see a l s o S p a r r y ' s Case, 5 Coke 61a., 77 E n g . Rep. 148 (K.B. 1591)." Ex parte S t a t e Mut. (emphasis pending abatement." 239 So. 715 So. 2d 207, 213 (Ala. 1997) added). Historically, multiple I n s . Co., 2d simultaneous a actions Benson v. 747, violation City 748-49 a c t i o n s was the prohibition redressable was of by of S c o t t s b o r o , (1970). The the predecessor 7 286 plea in a against "plea A l a . 315, abatement of the modern in 317, of motion 1081728 to dismiss. (Ala. to Terrell 1981) v. C i t y o f Bessemer, ("In t h i s (formerly dismiss jurisdiction a plea same action is cause, even though 1290 dismissal." (Ala. court court A l a . 223, goes To s u s t a i n action action 224, a be motion granted second a c t i o n f o r dismissed his first Thus, a stay D e A r m a n , 694 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 8 , ("Since that was even a dismissal results where was 298, pending the 299 right 8 582, raised party 585 i n the at the time in the compels See Ex p a r t e Bennett, (1935) ("A to maintain the plea in action. of the a c t i o n . " ) . invoking or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , supra. 2d statute i n a dismissal the So. "compels a compulsory counterclaim action."). So. 534 i t the matter commenced, court 164 applies, I n s . Co., to the present the plea i s true, requests Canal added) of the state abatement Ins., will was f i l e d . " ) . 6-5-440 complaint constitutes federal dismissal § parte 1988)(emphasis state This plaintiff See Ex p a r t e where Ex state court 231 i s that ( A l a . 1997). Moreover, the plaintiff's a f t e r the motion to dismiss n o t an a b a t e m e n t . the rule i n abatement) where d e f e n d a n t moves t o d i s m i s s the 406 S o . 2 d 3 3 7 , 340 the a stay. statute Canal 1081728 Shawnee c i t e s the statute two c a s e s i n s u p p o r t o f i t s c o n t e n t i o n does n o t mandate a dismissal, A m S o u t h B a n k , 735 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 1 ( 1 9 9 9 ) , of South AmSouth Alabama Bank Foundation, AmSouth AmSouth Bank that Bank] allegations yet 2d 2d involved was "an commenced an action in a action [as a court to dismiss parte First class state [against action], J . , dissenting). the action, National and F i r s t ( A l a . 2000). of Bank containing South similar States of Alabama." moved 735 S o . the state § 6-5-440, as w e l l of Jasper, 717 So. 2d as Ex 342 ( A l a . 718 S o . 2 d 20 (Ala. 1998). court d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n , and AmSouth p e t i t i o n e d t h i s C o u r t f o r a writ motion o f mandamus to dismiss This issued Court a writ Bank, class i n the United T e n n e s s e e B a n k , N.A. v . S n e l l , AmSouth [against AmSouth], but not AmSouth citing class court containing ... h a d b e e n c o m m e n c e d (Cook, 161 parte University and U n i v e r s i t y Court f o r the Southern D i s t r i c t a t 1154 1997), So. Ex decided. after certified District and Ex p a r t e does n o t a i d Shawnee, A l a b a m a was w r o n g l y allegations 788 namely, that 735 So. 2d a t 1 1 5 2 . directing the t r i a l judge The state to grant i t s the action. declined to order o f mandamus o r d e r i n g 9 a dismissal a stay and, instead, of the action i n the 1081728 state court pending a r e s o l u t i o n of the c e r t i f i c a t i o n the of federal court. § 6-5-440 Jasper as propounded raised However, b u t on refined Snell. specifically by t h e f i l i n g i t d i d s o , n o t on t h e a u t h o r i t y the a u t h o r i t y of the r u l e by to issue i n That deal i n the courts rule, with which the of t h i s announced i n this peculiar State Court issues of m u l t i p l e a c t i o n s c o n t a i n i n g o v e r l a p p i n g c l a s s a l l e g a t i o n s , i s s t a t e d as follows: "The first c l a s s a c t i o n p r e v a i l s over a second s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r case f i l e d i n another c o u r t . ... [ T ] h e c o u r t i n w h i c h t h e s e c o n d c l a s s a c t i o n i s filed should refuse to exercise j u r i s d i c t i o n over the case once i t i s a p p r i s e d of the f a c t that another court has assumed jurisdiction of substantially t h e same c a s e ( i n v o l v i n g t h e same p a r t i e s , t h e same i s s u e s , e t c ) . " Snell, 718 So. 2 d a t 23 (emphasis B a n k , 735 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 5 4 ) . added) The C o u r t (quoted i n AmSouth i n AmSouth Bank stated: "As o f t h e d a t e o f t h e r e l e a s e o f t h i s o p i n i o n , t h e r e h a s b e e n no c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f a c l a s s i n t h e [ f i r s t - f i l e d federal] action. Therefore, the only i n j u r y AmSouth has i n c u r r e d i n r e g a r d t o t h e S t a t e action ... i s a r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t A m S o u t h produce documents, p r e p a r e f o r d e p o s i t i o n s , and p r e p a r e f o r a c l a s s - c e r t i f i c a t i o n hearing, while already doing t h e s e same t h i n g s i n r e g a r d t o t h e a c t i o n i n t h e federal district court. This injury should be a d d r e s s e d not by a b a t i n g [the l a t e r f i l e d ] State a c t i o n , b u t b y p u t t i n g i t on a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h o l d u n t i l the United States D i s t r i c t Court c e r t i f i e s , or refuses to c e r t i f y , the c l a s s i n the [federal] 10 1081728 action, claims." 735 So. 2d as at to 1154 that and his So. 2d includes claims, at state court then the of the was i f a action aids year Estes after of purportedly applying parties action the state in the legal were in federal trial judge court state In class and either court. authority Bank was did § 6-5-440. potential (1) court. abated." 735 the Court in federal the the court, dismissal Thus, AmSouth Bank Nettles. Alabama, a the and action] action § 6-5-440 w o u l d r e q u i r e court, in in action words, the further State m u s t be encompassing state Court i n the other certified i n the South who fraud [federal] action added). AmSouth University by State eventually brought i n the Bank named p l a i n t i f f [the] a p p l i c a t i o n of actually A [the (emphasis that, AmSouth is certified then 1154 recognized the and added). however, "If a class class breach-of-contract (emphasis Significantly, stated: the decided, order to 788 counterclaim filed So. 2d a 11 Court, in a a at defendants case, in an o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g action against them to the (2) 163. stay, in petition or dismiss supporting stay That case i n v o l v e d seeking a writ later a this this stay in a action Without citing any Court chose the 1081728 "second option" as circumstances." University plain statute, defense the of South of § Alabama 6-5-440 i t , including "the pendency appropriate stated and the former (Emphasis in § the 6-5-440 i s an Court defendant's will defeat allegations has defined assertion the an plaintiff's ... i n the complaint (Ala. ed. 2007), 2004)). quoting i n turn i s a Otherwise claim, defense. defense are true."'" as that, even 2001). '"[a] i f true, i f a l lthe Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 2009) good stated, ( A l a . C i v . App. Gadsden (quoting Lloyd a subsequently supra. exercised B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y Thus, t h e pendency o f a former t h e same c a u s e . Bennett, be caselaw F o u n d . , I n c . v . H e a l t h S o u t h , I n c . , 979 S o . 2 d 7 8 4 , 791 defeats, for of the According to the and arguments C o u n t r y C l u b , 14 S o . 3 d 8 3 0 , 8 3 3 - 3 4 Noland the with affirmative affirmative of facts body [action] added.) V e t e t o v . Y o c u m , 793 S o . 2 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 5 - 1 6 "This under i s inconsistent Canal Insurance. of to the l a t t e r . " rule "more 788 S o . 2 d a t 1 6 5 . language interpreting being filed action i s , therefore, at the d i s c r e t i o n 12 abates, or a g a i n s t t h e same See Ex p a r t e C a n a l A stay action 451 ( 8 t h party I n s . , s u p r a ; Ex p a r t e n o t an o p t i o n of the j u d i c i a r y . t h a t can 1081728 This "is i s so, because the p r i n c i p l e f o u n d e d upon t h e p o l i c y suits -- from the grievance of double F o s t e r v. N a p i e r , defendant i s twice i s a impleaded Ala. conclusion into v. from vexation oppression, f o r t h e same (1883). of [and] cause or "[W]hen a b y t h e same p l a i n t i f f , f o r the and v e x a t i o n i s n o t matter of f a c t ; l a w , and i s not the actual circumstances dependent upon o f t h e two c a s e s . " an 73 a t 603. "[T]he an of a multiplicity 73 A l a . 5 9 5 , 606 same t h i n g , t h e o p p r e s s i o n inquiry of discouraging of p r o t e c t i n g the defendant thing." it c o d i f i e d by t h e s t a t u t e institution "offense of the second or wrong, action" i s , i n itself, so t o s p e a k . " I n t e r s t a t e Chem. Home G u a n o C o . , 199 A l a . 5 8 3 , 5 8 4 , 75 S o . 1 6 6 , 166 (emphasis seeks semel" wrong added). The to prevent consists of the second committed (emphasis "offense added). The atonement" f o r the o f f e n s e before the plea Foster, vexatious and plaintiff (1917) that the statute "existence i n the very action. "'was o r wrong" Corp. simul 73 A l a . a t 6 0 3 . i l l ab might initio.'" "accomplish et The Id. [an] "by d i s c o n t i n u i n g h i s f i r s t a c t i o n " i n abatement i s filed, but not afterward. 1 Where t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s f i r s t - f i l e d a c t i o n i s i n f e d e r a l c o u r t s e e k i n g r e l i e f on b o t h f e d e r a l c l a i m s a n d s t a t e - l a w c l a i m s b u t t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t has d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e i t s 1 13 1081728 Interstate mere Chem., 199 A l a . a t 5 8 5 , 75 S o . a t 1 6 6 . stay of the second action However, a accomplishes no such "atonement." "The plaintiff complaint.'" 681, 693 (Ala. first not time. i t . " action 2007). "There o r the pendency t h e same require a l l , "the Noland Health Servs. institution at i s , " after Foster, The 'master I n c . v . W r i g h t , 971 S o . 2 d c a n be o f two s u i t s security no necessity of the defendant." of the p l a i n t i f f i t i s the fault I d . a t 605. f o r the f o r t h e same 73 A l a . a t 606 ( e m p h a s i s i s "defective, of h i s matter can not added). of the Indeed, I fthe plaintiff, recognizing a s t a y o f t h e s e c o n d a c t i o n a s an a c c e p t a b l e o p t i o n , p e n d i n g t h e outcome o f t h e f i r s t , would n o t o n l y encourage but also making "'would the f i r s t v. R a y , 52 N.H. is stayed, both courts encourage and c u l t i v a t e one e f f e c t u a l . ' " 513 (1872)). the defendant Even remains prepared to defend forum a want o f due c a r e i n I d . a t 606 (quoting i f the l a t e r obligated against shopping, Gamsby filed action to stand before t h e same cause. pendent j u r i s d i c t i o n over the s t a t e - l a w claims, the p l a i n t i f f may t h e n p u r s u e t h e s t a t e - l a w c l a i m s i n s t a t e c o u r t w i t h o u t v i o l a t i n g § 6-5-440. T e r r e l l v . C i t y o f B e s s e m e r , 406 S o . 2 d 337 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) . However, t h e d i s m i s s a l o f an e a r l i e r f i l e d f e d e r a l a c t i o n d o e s n o t r e n d e r § 6-5-440 i n a p p l i c a b l e d u r i n g the pendency o f an a p p e a l . L.A. D r a p e r & Son, I n c . v. W h e e l a b r a t o r - F r y e , I n c . , 454 S o . 2 d 506 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . 14 1081728 Shawnee about the e s s e n t i a l l y concedes viability to hedge i t s bet a t 2. This We hold, of the the statute extent filing therefore, later the provides construing that Nettles the and foregoing have the Alabama to of as § reasons, a we clear, 27, and this action grant the (2) and C.J., Shaw, J J . , Lyons, J., and to prejudice, petition P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT Cobb, Stuart, and Court enter that issue (1) an pursuant the to the lieu of a § a writ and of to vacate i t s order to the to Estes dismissing 6-5-440. We writ. ISSUED. Smith, concur. concurs in we in Thus, legal right July therefore authority, stay a Because aberration conclude Monroe C i r c u i t without a by Conclusion mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e order, satisfied 6-5-440. authorize prevent. dismissal. an brief, overruled. demonstrated 2009, Shawnee's discretionary applying i t sought s t a t u t e aims to lieu such reservations that in III. For state action. evil South i t i s hereby and case i t purports dismissal, action § 6-5-440 i s n o t no of i t had that filed University caselaw i t s federal i s p r e c i s e l y the stay regard by of that specially. 15 Bolin, Parker, Murdock, 1081728 LYONS, J u s t i c e The main (concurring opinion specially). overrules Ex p a r t e U n i v e r s i t y of South A l a b a m a F o u n d a t i o n , 788 S o . 2 d 161 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , w i t h o u t been asked Company, adhere 905 t o do so the p e t i t i o n e r s , J.E. Estes I n c . , a n d A.A. Nettles, result) ("Without precedent (Ala. 2004)(Lyons, a decisions, a court adverse party's subordinate decided, specific been o v e r r u l e d taking such States asked v. Johnson, the I Corp., i nthe overrule prior consider by respondent error In C l a r k v. W e l l s So. 3d o f f an important was wrongly adherence t o i t . J., dissenting) to overrule Feres ('We See, to leave (Ala. 2009), whether induce us, despite the bad enough F a r g o B a n k , N.A., have [v. United and so need n o t r e s o l v e 16 previous cuts the precedent of stare d e c i s i s should of the case, by 4 8 1 U.S. 6 8 1 , 7 0 3 , 107 S . C t . (Scalia, 340 U.S. 135 ( 1 9 5 0 ) ] , considerations 2009] to sua sponte r i g h t t o have t h e c o u r t 2 0 6 3 , 95 L . E d . 2 d 648 ( 1 9 8 7 ) plain action question--assuming United States, Hanna S t e e l sub s i l e n t i o whether s t a r e d e c i s i s r e q u i r e s been Ltd. J . ,concurring request Wood i n a s e t t i n g w h e r e no a r g u m e n t c a n b e made t h a t t h e precedent has a l r e a d y not Sr. Properties, t o t h e v i e w I e x p r e s s e d i n Ex p a r t e S o . 2 d 8 0 5 , 810 e.g., by having alone.')."). [Ms. 1 0 7 1 1 9 2 , May 1 5 , released before the t r i a l 1081728 court issued i t s stay Court quoted with i n this approval case from on July Johnson 27, 2009, v. Brown-Service I n s u r a n c e C o . , 2 9 3 A l a . 5 4 9 , 5 5 2 , 307 S o . 2 d 5 1 8 , 520 in which t h e Johnson statement Court quoted with approval from a b r i e f this (1974), the following o f one o f t h e p a r t i e s : "'If a l a w y e r s t a r t s w i t h two c o m p l a i n t s i n his p o c k e t , e a c h b y t h e same p l a i n t i f f a g a i n s t t h e same defendant f o r t h e same c a u s e , a n d w a l k s t o t h e Federal Courthouse f i r s t t o f i l e h i s s u i t , then t o the State Courthouse t o f i l e h i s s u i t there, the r u l e a p p l i e s . Upon t h e i s s u e b e i n g r a i s e d i n t h e S t a t e c o u r t , t h e s u i t must be a b a t e d . ' " (Emphasis added.) Because authority the foregoing i n dealing with statement as t o t h e t r i a l court's a second-filed state-court action c a n n o t be r e c o n c i l e d w i t h Ex p a r t e U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h Alabama Foundation I consider by t h e more r e c e n t i t t o have been sub s i l e n t i o d e c i s i o n i n C l a r k v. W e l l s 17 overruled Fargo Bank, N.A.

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.