Ex parte Alabama State Personnel Board. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc. v. Alabama State Personnel Board, PEBCO, Inc., and the Alabama State Employees Association)

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 Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1090530 Ex p a r t e Alabama S t a t e Personnel Board PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Nationwide Retirement S o l u t i o n s , Inc. v. Alabama S t a t e P e r s o n n e l B o a r d , PEBCO, I n c . , and t h e Alabama S t a t e Employees A s s o c i a t i o n ) (Montgomery C i r c u i t BOLIN, Court, CV-09-1088) Justice. The A l a b a m a of Alabama mandamus State Personnel ("the B o a r d " ) , directing B o a r d , an a g e n c y o f t h e S t a t e petitions the t r i a l this court Court f o r a writ of to vacate i t s order 1090530 referring the the u n d e r l y i n g petition and issue Facts On J u l y 15, ("NRS"), PEBCO, Inc., an and the provided that called Plan" the ("the permits deferred sums The p l a n " ) , which State employees basis, would against court. also a v a i l a b l e to save a for portion complaint added NRS by 14, by the plan A l a . Code State and 1975, employees the Board direction adopts t h r o u g h ASEA. and ASEA b o t h c l a i m e d seeking is i t s fiduciary. a legal NRS right from the court 2 involve employees NRS. The plan a tax- on their income The Pursuant to § the plan the Compensation retirement of to State Deferred i s administered deferring The be Board, Association i n t e r p l e a d e d by Employees to the a c c o r d a n c e w i t h § 457 of the I n t e r n a l Revenue Code. sponsors grant Solutions, Inc. Employees i n the plan State Retirement action moneys retirement "Alabama We History State $432,740 amount. supplemental Procedural Alabama future master. writ. Nationwide depositing a to a s p e c i a l interpleader ("ASEA"), interpleaded the and 2009, filed case as Board 36-26¬ recommended alleged that the Board t o t h e m o n e y s , a n d NRS regarding in the payment of was the 1090530 moneys and an order company, N a t i o n w i d e dismiss the settled expense filed a motion to interpleader alleging complaint, that NRS i n the form arguing and asked that the Securities Nationwide they had had been commissions, benefiting them a t t h e B o t h A S E A a n d PEBCO t h e B o a r d be o r d e r e d t o s t o p i n t e r f e r i n g and Exchange Commission, allegations involving cross-claims 21, 2009, t h e B o a r d against seven individuals, PEBCO. 1 The Board filed A S E A a n d PEBCO who are o f f i c e r s alleged that which with t h e k i c k b a c k scheme. On A u g u s t Nationwide 2009 were interpleader and t h a t the action. funds made i t s answer and and added claims and employees i t recently The B o a r d were further the filed against o f ASEA and PEBCO t h e a m o u n t s d u e on t h o s e that the discovered i m p r o p e r p a y m e n t s h a d b e e n made t o A S E A a n d / o r from that of unauthorized a n d f e e s t o A S E A a n d PEBCO, also and/or affiliated liability. o f t h e p l a n and i t s p a r t i c i p a n t s . original i t s from "kickbacks" expenses, and I n s u r a n c e Company, claims Life NRS 2 0 , 2 0 0 9 , A S E A a n d PEBCO e a c h On A u g u s t paying discharging subject alleged that from that NRS payments of the improper The seven i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s a r e Edwin J . M c A r t h u r , Steve Walkley, Glenn Parker, U l y s s e s Lavender, Diana McLain, Randy Hebson, and R o b e r t W a g s t a f f . 1 3 1090530 payments had been asserted that i t was that each year entitled since named claims of breach suppression, those individual defendants. of claims triable duty, The B o a r d of right ASEA, The by a Board funds PEBCO, The B o a r d fiduciary and c o n s p i r a c y . 2000. to the interpleaded t h e r e s h o u l d b e an a c c o u n t i n g f r o m seven on made also fraud, and and t h e asserted fraudulent demanded a j u r y trial jury. On S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 , T w a n n a B r o w n , a S t a t e e m p l o y e e a n d a member o f A S E A action. behalf On She a l s o and o f t h e p l a n , sought o f a l l A S E A members December following 16, moved certification and p l a n 2009, the to intervene i n the of a class participants. trial court action on 2 entered the order: " I t h a s become a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f a special master i s necessary to hear pending motions and o t h e r m a t t e r s a n d make recommended o r d e r s . P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 3 , A l a . R. C i v . P., i t i s hereby ordered that Frank Wilson i s appointed s p e c i a l master to hear a l l matters i n the aboves t y l e d case. "The special master shall have t h e r i g h t s , p o w e r s , a n d d u t i e s p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 53 a n d may a d o p t s u c h p r o c e d u r e s as a r e n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h a t r u l e or w i t h t h i s or other orders o f the Court. A t t h e t i m e she f i l e d h e r m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e h e r e , Brown had f i l e d a c l a s s a c t i o n i n J e f f e r s o n County, w h i c h i s s t i l l pending. 2 4 1090530 " T h e s p e c i a l m a s t e r s h a l l make f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , as n e c e s s a r y , and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w w i t h r e s p e c t t o m a t t e r s p r e s e n t e d by the p a r t i e s , and he shall r e p o r t e x p e d i t i o u s l y to the Court. "Compensation at rates m u t u a l l y agreeable to the s p e c i a l m a s t e r a n d t h e p a r t i e s s h a l l be p a i d t o t h e s p e c i a l m a s t e r on a m o n t h l y b a s i s b y t h e p a r t i e s , t o g e t h e r w i t h reimbursement f o r reasonable expenses i n c u r r e d by t h e s p e c i a l m a s t e r . I f t h e p a r t i e s and the s p e c i a l m a s t e r a r e u n a b l e t o a g r e e upon t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n , i t s h a l l be f i x e d b y t h e C o u r t . The s p e c i a l master s h a l l , w i t h i n f i v e ( 5 ) days, i n f o r m t h e C o u r t i f he a n d t h e p a r t i e s h a v e a g r e e d u p o n h i s compensation." On December 21, 2009, t h e B o a r d f i l e d court's appointment vacate that of a s p e c i a l master in issues the directly case. related Brown also to the and moved t h e c o u r t order or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , a p p o i n t i n g the s p e c i a l master for an o b j e c t i o n to modify the order s o t h a t t h e a p p o i n t m e n t was only t o a c c o u n t i n g w o r k t h a t may filed a to motion objecting arise to the appointment. On writ of J a n u a r y 26, 2010, mandamus. That p l e a d i n g s t o a d d a new the Board same day, d e f e n d a n t , AON filed the this petition Board amended i t s C o n s u l t i n g , I n c . , and add a d d i t i o n a l c l a i m s a g a i n s t ASEA, PEBCO, and t h e s e v e n individual defendants. 5 for a to named 1090530 On January hearing. parties the The t r i a l would 2010, also master's fights." have appointment special On court held a t o have a n t i c i p a t e d hear those i s s u e s , that i t would process status that the and that among o t h e r s . The terminate the special i fthe p a r t i e s d i d not g e t i n t o "a l o t of Ultimately, status trial a contentious discovery indicated another the c o u r t appears s p e c i a l master would court hold 28, the t r i a l court stated that i t would c o n f e r e n c e a n d t h e n d e c i d e how t o u s e t h e master. February 4, 2010, t h e t r i a l court amending i t s order a p p o i n t i n g the s p e c i a l entered an order master: "This matter i s before the Court on t h e O b j e c t i o n o f t h e A l a b a m a S t a t e P e r s o n n e l B o a r d ... to t h e Appointment o f a S p e c i a l M a s t e r , and M o t i o n t o V a c a t e a n d / o r M o d i f y The C o u r t ' s O r d e r A p p o i n t i n g the S p e c i a l M a s t e r . "[NRS] filed a complaint to interplead approximately $1,000,000.00 into the court to d e t e r m i n e t o whom t h e money s h o u l d b e a w a r d e d . [ T h e B o a r d , ] PEBCO, I n c . ('PEBCO'), a n d t h e A l a b a m a S t a t e Employees Association ('ASEA') are named as defendants. "[The Board] thirteen counts, follows: f i l e d a cross-claim that contains a s a m e n d e d . The c o u n t s a r e as "Count 1: c l a i m f o rthe i n t e r p l e d funds, a g a i n s t A S E A , PEBCO, a n d E d w i n J . M c A r t h u r , S t e v e W a l k l e y , Glenn P a r k e r , U l y s s e s L a v e n d e r , Diana M c L a i n , Randy 6 1090530 Hebson, and R o b e r t W a g s t a f f defendants'); ('seven i n d i v i d u a l named " C o u n t 2: a c c o u n t i n g , a g a i n s t A S E A , PEBCO, s e v e n i n d i v i d u a l named defendants; and " C o u n t 3: b r e a c h o f f i d u c i a r y d u t i e s , against A S E A , PEBCO, s e v e n i n d i v i d u a l named d e f e n d a n t s , a n d AON C o n s u l t i n g ('AON'); "Count 4: f r a u d , against ASEA; " C o u n t 5: f r a u d u l e n t s u p p r e s s i o n , against ASEA; " C o u n t 6: c o n s p i r a c y , a g a i n s t A S E A , PEBCO, s e v e n i n d i v i d u a l named defendants; "Count 7: c o n s p i r a c y , "Count 8: b r e a c h against and AON; of contract, against AON; " C o u n t 9: c o n s p i r a c y , a g a i n s t A S E A , PEBCO, i n d i v i d u a l named d e f e n d a n t s , a n d AON; seven " C o u n t 1 0 : c o n v e r s i o n , a g a i n s t A S E A , PEBCO, a n d s e v e n i n d i v i d u a l named defendants; "Count 11: u n j u s t PEBCO, s e v e n i n d i v i d u a l enrichment, against ASEA, named d e f e n d a n t s , a n d AON; "Count 12: d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t , a g a i n s t ASEA, PEBCO, a n d s e v e n i n d i v i d u a l named defendants; "Count 13: wrongful interference c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , a g a i n s t A S E A , PEBCO, i n d i v i d u a l named d e f e n d a n t s , a n d AON. with seven "In a d d i t i o n , [ t h e Board] i s s e e k i n g injunctive r e l i e f , e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f , m o n e t a r y damages, a n d an accounting. The r e l i e f sought, as w e l l as t h e accounting, i s not a simple mathematical determination. This Court believes this w i l l be 7 1090530 d i f f i c u l t t o compute. [ T h e Board] has r e q u e s t e d a j u r y t r i a l on a l l i s s u e s t h a t c o u l d be t r i e d b e f o r e a j u r y but c o u l d not s p e c i f y the i s s u e s that would be t r i e d j u r y a n d n o n - j u r y . "There has a l s o been a motion t o i n t e r v e n e f i l e d b y T w a n n a B r o w n ('Brown') a s a member o f A S E A a n d s e e k s a c l a s s a c t i o n c e r t i f i c a t i o n on b e h a l f o f a l l members o f A S E A . T h i s c o m p l a i n t c o n t a i n s f o u r c o u n t s a g a i n s t a l l named p a r t i e s : A S E A , N a t i o n w i d e , PEBCO, a n d s e v e n i n d i v i d u a l named d e f e n d a n t s : "Count 1: c o n s p i r a c y ; "Count 2: b r e a c h of f i d u c i a r y duty; " C o u n t 3: d e c l a r a t o r y and i n j u n c t i v e relief s e e k i n g t h e removal o f o f f i c e r s and d i r e c t o r s ; "Count 4: d e r i v a t i v e claim. "To c l a r i f y i t s p r e v i o u s o r d e r a p p o i n t i n g t h e S p e c i a l Master, t h i s Court w i l l p r e s i d e over the t r i a l of t h i s case, determine a l l matters of the requested relief including, but not l i m i t e d t o , dispositive motions, monetary damages, equitable relief, injunctive relief, and determine a l l evidentiary issues. " T h i s Court has a p p o i n t e d and i s c u r r e n t l y u s i n g w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n by t h e S t a t e o f Alabama a S p e c i a l Master in approximately thirty cases wherein c o r p o r a t i o n s sought refunds of f r a n c h i s e taxes from the Alabama Department of Revenue. L i k e w i s e , another Circuit Judge i n t h i s Circuit h a s a p p o i n t e d two Special Masters i n cases involving the Alabama Medicaid Agency and pharmaceutical companies. S p e c i a l M a s t e r s have been a p p o i n t e d by t h e judges i n t h e 1 5 t h J u d i c i a l C i r c u i t a s 'an e x c e p t i o n ' a n d n o t as a g e n e r a l r u l e . 8 1090530 "There are approximately thirteen attorneys representing several different parties with claims for e q u i t a b l e and i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f , and monetary damages. There a r e n o n j u r y and j u r y demands, c r o s s claims, counter claims, and t h i r d party claims i n v o l v i n g complex i s s u e s . In a d d i t i o n , the p a r t i e s c a n n o t a g r e e on w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e m o n i e s s h o u l d b e i n t e r p l e d t o t h e C o u r t . T h i s Court has determined from the arguments of the p a r t i e s , t h e p l e a d i n g s , and m o t i o n s f i l e d t h a t t h i s c a s e i s c o m p l i c a t e d and meets t h e c r i t e r i a s t a t e d i n R u l e 5 3 , A l a . R. C i v . P., f o r t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f a S p e c i a l M a s t e r . A b s e n t an a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s , t h e C o u r t will r e s e r v e r u l i n g on w h e t h e r o r n o t [ t h e B o a r d ] will have t o pay i t s share o f t h e f e e o f t h e S p e c i a l Master u n t i l a future date. " B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , i t i s t h e o p i n i o n o f t h i s Court that a Special Master i s necessary i n t h i s case. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e r e q u e s t by [ t h e Board] for this Court to modify i t s previous order i s g r a n t e d as s t a t e d h e r e i n ; h o w e v e r , t h e M o t i o n b y [the Board] i s d e n i e d . " That motion answers same day, Brown to intervene. filed On M a r c h a motion to withdraw 10, 2 0 1 0 , t h i s Court ordered and b r i e f s . Standard of Review "'"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 b e i s s u e d o n l y w h e r e 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) a n imperative d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t to perform, 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 another adequate r e m e d y ; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court."'" 9 her 1090530 Ex parte Novartis 2007)(quoting 307, 309-10 Corp., 672 Ex parte (Ala. So. "'"In Pharm. 2d cases Corp., 975 Perfection 2003), 497, the Inc., Ex turn exercise of exercise of discretion. It [where the parte 685 court Monsanto (quoting (Ala. trial Ex (Ala. Co., parte 1989), exercise has 794 may not, exceeded So. in turn 882 So. parte 2d Integon d i s c r e t i o n by an the however, issue to of d i s c r e t i o n , except i n a case 2d Ex i t s d i s c r e t i o n ] . " ' " Ex 350, Auto-Owners Ins. quoting (Ala. i s s u e to compel c o u r t , [ t h e w r i t o f ] mandamus may c o n t r o l or r e v i e w the 2 99 1995)). inferior that 2 97 , in (Ala. involving 2d Siding, quoting 499 So. Co., 351-52 548 parte So. Edgar, (Ala. 2d 543 2001) 1029, So. 1030 2d 682, exceeded its 1989)). Arguments The Board discretion referring showing that issuing in the a l l matters as computation required of complicated, warranting argues by trial order of court December a s p e c i a l master where Rule 53(b), Ala. R. damages or the to the was difficult, there was some appointment of 10 a there Civ. P., the issues exceptional special 16, master. 2009, was that no the were condition The Board 1090530 also argues December master PEBCO, 2008)(holding mandamus may the seven to pay fees t o a named argue individual that that, court to trial like cannot court's So. amended i t s special order The Ex 1263 ( A l a . for a writ of i s pending, f o r the appellate relief), they of February 4, respondents meet t h e Citing 2d the p e t i t i o n renders i t impossible the requested petition. 991 an a p p e a l , a p e t i t i o n be d i s m i s s e d i f , w h i l e grant in d e f e n d a n t s , and the Board P h a r m a c e u t i c a l Corp., occurs that Board's i n requiring o f p r o o f r e q u i r e d f o r mandamus r e l i e f . Novartis event erred t o A r t . I , § 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 . ("the r e s p o n d e n t s " ) parte court order the State i n contravention heavy burden an the t r i a l 16, 2009, ASEA, NRS that argue that the 2010, moots t h e further argue that the F e b r u a r y 4, 2 0 1 0 , o r d e r e x p r e s s l y f o u n d t h a t t h e i s s u e s b e f o r e a jury would involved In makes complicated exceptional response court's that be amended the t r i a l a mere and that the nonjury c i r c u m s t a n c e s , as r e q u i r e d to the respondents' order court's moots the p e t i t i o n , amended conclusory argument order statement by R u l e 53. that the the Board of February that issues the 4, trial argues 2010, case i s c o m p l i c a t e d , which statement i t argues i s not s u p p o r t e d by t h e 11 1090530 record, and authority that d i d n o t remedy Board's r i g h t order the m o d i f i c a t i o n to a t r i a l improperly the t r i a l to the special court's violation by j u r y b e c a u s e , i t s a y s , delegated the court's master's judicial of the t h e amended function. Discussion We agree with the respondents order o f December 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 , was order of February 4, 2 0 1 0 . Court's consideration and because objects to o f t h e F e b r u a r y 4, 2 0 1 0 , a m e n d e d 2010, i t would be waste order, a the Board's p e t i t i o n , of this order, of the judicial w h i c h was filed on 26, 2010, as moot. Rule 53, A l a . R. a special the occasions master no p a r t y the merits to dismiss court's moot b y t h e a m e n d e d argue resources out Because trial i n fact, 4, appoint rendered the the p a r t i e s , February January that C i v . P., master. upon i s appropriate Rule which provides 53(b), that A l a . R. the appointment and p r o v i d e s a court may C i v . P., sets of a special as f o l l o w s : "(b) R e f e r e n c e . A r e f e r e n c e t o a m a s t e r s h a l l be the e x c e p t i o n a n d n o t t h e r u l e . I n a c t i o n s t o be t r i e d b y a j u r y , a r e f e r e n c e s h a l l be made o n l y when t h e i s s u e s a r e c o m p l i c a t e d ; i n a c t i o n s t o be t r i e d without a j u r y , save i n m a t t e r s o f a c c o u n t and o f d i f f i c u l t c o m p u t a t i o n o f damages, a r e f e r e n c e shall b e made o n l y u p o n a s h o w i n g t h a t some e x c e p t i o n a l condition requires i t . " 12 1090530 The appointment of a s p e c i a l master l i e s discretion of the t r i a l and i t s d e c i s i o n t o a p p o i n t special master clearly exceeds that d i s c r e t i o n . 1353 to should court, ( A l a . 1988). n o t be r e v e r s e d In a j u r y special master those matters t o be t r i e d w i t h o u t special master only upon or a emphasize the applicable difficult standard reference sentence (jury to a special a jury finding possible lack of confidence Good E a t i n g , 815 Rule of (7thC i r . 1942)." "complicated"; "some of that that exceptional damages. precedes tells i s the exception likelihood We the us t h a t t h e not the r u l e . of delay, and i n t h e outcome, t h e power t o o r d e r i s t o be s p a r i n g l y e x e r c i s e d . I n c . v. Best are be r e f e r r e d a r e t o be r e f e r r e d t o 53(b) costs, court u n l e s s a c l a i m r e q u i r e s an or nonjury) of the increased reference Rule master "Because a a case should computation in the t r i a l a v . M a z z o n e , 540 S o . 2 d i f the issues c o n d i t i o n " r e q u i r i n g such r e f e r r a l , accounting unless Hall trial, a a only w i t h i n t h e sound Places See A d v e n t u r e s i n t o E a t , I n c . , 131 F . 2 d 8 0 9 , C o m m i t t e e Comments o n 1 9 7 3 A d o p t i o n of 53. Because patterned the after Alabama Rules the Federal Rules 13 of C i v i l of C i v i l Procedure are Procedure, federal 1090530 cases construing the Federal persuasive authority Procedure. Borders 1176 ( A l a . 2003). n. 2 substantially Referring master v. v. C i t y similar of H u n t s v i l l e , Rule t o Rule fundamental Warrob, of C i v i l Procedure are i n c o n s t r u i n g t h e Alabama Rules o f C i v i l for adjudication, Stauble Rules 875 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 8 , 5 3 , A l a . R. C i v . P., i s 5 3 , F e d . R. C i v . P . issues over I n c . , 977 of l i a b i l i t y objection, F.2d 690 3 to a special i s not permitted. ( 1 s t C i r . 1992). "Determining bottom-line legal questions i sthe r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the court i t s e l f . question ... Because d e t e r m i n i n g a fundamental o f l i a b i l i t y goes b e y o n d mere a s s i s t a n c e and reaches "Ala. R. C i v . P. R u l e 5 3 ( a ) c o n t a i n s a reference t o courts t o which these r u l e s are a p p l i c a b l e w h i l e F e d . R. C i v . P. R u l e 53(a) r e f e r s t o d i s t r i c t c o u r t . A l a . R. Civ. P. Rule 53(a) does not contain reference to terminology appropriate to a d m i r a l t y p r a c t i c e , w h e r e i n F e d . R. C i v . P. Rule 53(a) c o n t a i n s such t e r m i n o l o g y . A l a . R. C i v . P. R u l e 53(a) second sentence, contains a prohibition against the i n t e r e s t e d m a s t e r , w h e r e a s F e d . R. C i v . P. Rule 5 3 ( a ) does not contain such a prohibition. F e d . R. C i v . P. R u l e 53 h a s s e v e r a l v a r i a t i o n s made n e c e s s a r y b y t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of United States Magistrate Judges." 2 Champ L y o n s , J r . , & A l l y W. H o w e l l , A l a b a m a P r o c e d u r e A n n o t a t e d § 53.8 ( 4 t h e d . 2 0 0 4 ) . 14 Rules Civil 1090530 the essential judicial [United not States allow to identified masters stature) i n the F.2d 695. (or face of "Rule 53 to f o r making other a ... judge or j u r y , c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y litigation." Inc. , 94 9 fraud are assist, authorizes whether court F.2d 1165, v. district court 991 F.2d 11 68 by has (D.C. F.2d i n favor defending replace, 75, 80 the President 1086 and of America Coal any III 977 of adjudicator, Operator's for Ass'n, "Actions reference exceptional for to a cases.'" ( 6 t h C i r . 1972 ) . "A i t s adjudicatory has United not the by Senate." States been Gypsum Co., (3d C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) . Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n of " [ t ] h a t no p e r s o n s h a l l be b a r r e d before be indicated for federal confirmed v. Article the C i r . 1991). or to appointment o f a d e c i s i o n m a k e r who I n A l a b a m a , A r t . I , § 10, provides the inappropriate 454 of does objection." no d i s c r e t i o n t o d e l e g a t e I n s . Co. 1080, to extraordinary Thompson, responsibility Prudential in not re Bituminous particularly 'save appointed In not contemporaneous masters Bradshaw Article I I I , such judgments persons special master, by C o n s t i t u t i o n , ] R u l e 5 3 [ , F e d . R. C i v . P . , ] the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y delegated at function tribunal in this 15 1901, from p r o s e c u t i n g state, by himself or or 1090530 counsel, any c i v i l provides "[t]hat inviolate." c a u s e t o w h i c h he i s a p a r t y . " the right Section open; and t h a t every lands, goods, 13 p r o v i d e s person, due process administered 139(a), of to person, by jury f o r any i n j u r y and shall "[t]hat a l l courts or r e p u t a t i o n , law; without trial Section right shall and 11 remain shall be done h i m , i n h i s have a remedy by shall be justice s a l e , d e n i a l , or delay." Article VI, § provides: " E x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d b y t h i s C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e j u d i c i a l p o w e r o f t h e s t a t e s h a l l be vested e x c l u s i v e l y i n a u n i f i e d j u d i c i a l system which s h a l l c o n s i s t o f a supreme c o u r t , a c o u r t o f c r i m i n a l appeals, a court of c i v i l appeals, a t r i a l court of g e n e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n known a s t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , a trial court of l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n known as t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , a p r o b a t e c o u r t and such m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s a s may b e p r o v i d e d b y l a w . " The judicial having In power State must be e x e r c i s e d by courts the a t t r i b u t e s p r e s c r i b e d i n the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n . Ex p a r t e 2005), the t r i a l a of t h i s s p e c i a l master individual cases. Flexible court to Products Co., 915 i n consolidated tort conduct This Court jury trials So. 2d actions on 34 ( A l a . appointed damages i n the stated: " R u l e 53 d o e s n o t e n v i s i o n t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d appoint a s p e c i a l master with the a u t h o r i t y to c o n d u c t a j u r y t r i a l . M o r e o v e r , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t R u l e 53, a r u l e o f p r o c e d u r e , i s s u f f i c i e n t l y 16 1090530 broad to vest the trial court with a u t h o r i t y to a p p o i n t a s p e c i a l m a s t e r w i t h t h e same a u t h o r i t y as i s ' e x c l u s i v e l y v e s t e d ' i n the j u d i c i a l system. A l a . C o n s t . 1901, Amend. No. 328 , § 6.01 [§ 139, Ala. C o n s t . 1901 (Off. Recomp.)]. "This Court has stated: "'The f u n c t i o n of a "judge" i s to determine c o n t r o v e r s i e s b e t w e e n l i t i g a n t s , and they are not a d v i s e r s . In re R i c h a r d s o n , 247 N.Y. 4 0 1 , 160 N.E. 655 [ ( 1 9 2 8 ) ] . A " j u d g e " i s one who p r e s i d e s o v e r a c o u r t . S t a t e e x r e l . M a d d e n v . C r a w f o r d , 207 O r . 76, 295 P.2d 174 [(1956)]. His " j u d i c i a l a c t s " are the performance of d u t i e s which have been c o n f i d e d t o h i m as a j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r t o be e x e r c i s e d i n a j u d i c i a l way. S u p e r v i s o r s o f Onondaga v. Briggs, (N.Y.) 2 Denio 26 [(1846)]. "'As s t a t e d by C h a n c e l l o r K e n t , "The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t j u d i c i a l o f f i c e s must be e x e r c i s e d i n p e r s o n , a n d t h a t a j u d g e cannot delegate h i s a u t h o r i t y to another. I do n o t know o f a n y e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s r u l e w i t h u s . " 3 K e n t Com. 1 2 t h Ed. 457.' " O p i n i o n o f t h e J u s t i c e s No. 1 8 7 , 280 A l a . 6 5 3 , 658, 197 So. 2d 4 5 6 , 461 (1967). F u r t h e r , the c o u r t s of t h i s S t a t e have r e c o g n i z e d t h a t j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n s , s u c h as d e c l a r i n g a m i s t r i a l , Parham v. S t a t e , 47 Ala. App. 7 6, 250 So. 2d 613, 617 (Ala.Crim.App. 1 9 7 1 ) , o r s t r i k i n g j u r o r s , R u s s a w v . S t a t e , 572 So. 2d 1288 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 0 ) , may n o t be delegated i n the absence of s p e c i f i c statutory authority." 915 So. delegate 2d at 54. a judicial Mid-Continent Sys., "[W]e recognize function Inc., 447 that a court [to a s p e c i a l m a s t e r ] . " So. 17 2d 717, 720 (Ala. may Ex not parte 1984). 1090530 In i t s February t h a t i t was the court 4, clarifying 2010, i t s previous would preside matters regarding the limited to, dispositive relief, and evidentiary for referring Rule duties of over the 53(c), the requested The order trial and trial; court then would and court stated stated that determine a l l i n c l u d i n g , but m o n e t a r y damages, relief; trial the relief, motions, injunctive issues. order, would not equitable determine a l l also stated i t s reasons case to a special master. Ala. R. Civ. governs a special master and P., provides as the powers follows: "(c) P o w e r s . The order of r e f e r e n c e to the m a s t e r may s p e c i f y o r l i m i t t h e m a s t e r ' s p o w e r s a n d may d i r e c t t h e m a s t e r t o r e p o r t o n l y u p o n p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e s o r t o do o r p e r f o r m p a r t i c u l a r a c t s o r t o r e c e i v e and r e p o r t e v i d e n c e o n l y a n d may f i x the time and place for beginning and closing the h e a r i n g s and f o r t h e f i l i n g o f t h e m a s t e r ' s r e p o r t . S u b j e c t t o t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and l i m i t a t i o n s s t a t e d i n t h e o r d e r , t h e m a s t e r has and s h a l l e x e r c i s e t h e power to r e g u l a t e a l l p r o c e e d i n g s i n every hearing b e f o r e t h e m a s t e r a n d t o do a l l a c t s a n d t a k e a l l measures necessary or proper f o r the efficient performance of the master's d u t i e s under the order. The m a s t e r may r e q u i r e the p r o d u c t i o n before the m a s t e r of e v i d e n c e upon a l l m a t t e r s embraced i n the r e f e r e n c e , i n c l u d i n g the p r o d u c t i o n of a l l books, p a p e r s , v o u c h e r s , d o c u m e n t s , and w r i t i n g s a p p l i c a b l e t h e r e t o . The m a s t e r may r u l e u p o n t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e v i d e n c e u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e d i r e c t e d by t h e order o f r e f e r e n c e and has t h e a u t h o r i t y t o p u t witnesses on oath and may e x a m i n e them and may call the p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n and e x a m i n e them upon o a t h . 18 and 1090530 When a p a r t y so r e q u e s t s , t h e m a s t e r s h a l l make a r e c o r d o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d and e x c l u d e d i n t h e same m a n n e r a n d s u b j e c t t o t h e same l i m i t a t i o n s as provided i n the Alabama Rules of Evidence f o r a court s i t t i n g without a j u r y . " A case reference special is f o r the master reference." 66 assigned is to achieving judicial Miller, Here, charge, The were as of trial reference court for support the not as the to been referring reference, the A. Procedure out both d i d not the case nor to does 19 of Arthur 617 (2008). court's special master's of responsibility. nonjury d i s t i n g u i s h the the i f trial the attached claims special order court's s p e c i a l master anything R. trial j u r y and Even a course, in & § 2609 a t the of a minimum Wright the claims. ambiguous, of possible with omnibus p o u r o v e r court order Machs. Corp., as Charles that a object, delineating an of the "The reference sets recognized duties reasons order t h a n by had 9C without i n v o l v e d , but master's the order power of latitude much P r a c t i c e and amended other upon 1974). master responsibilities dependent an "The (S.D.N.Y. intervention." the follow. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Bus. objectives Federal to by S t a t e s v. 158 the the s p e c i a l master completely United give a s p e c i a l master is F.R.D. 1 5 4 , to of stated did not to the 1090530 mandamus petition or the respondents' briefs support a reference. The trial court justified s p e c i a l m a s t e r by c i t i n g the different seeking both damages. parties the t h e number o f a t t o r n e y s and equitable The t r i a l referring the and court fact that to a representing states that there are claims relief injunctive also cases and money there are nonjury and j u r y demands, c r o s s - c l a i m s , c o u n t e r c l a i m s , and t h i r d - p a r t y claims involving states as a r e a s o n the parties f o r the reference cannot interpleaded As complex i s s u e s . In a d d i t i o n , the t r i a l agree on to a special whether master t h e moneys earlier, s p e c i a l master w i l l the t r i a l court's n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s the t r i a l i n making the appointment. court there recognized i n this that case. the reference Where were District appoint Courts to a special by F e d e r a l Rule masters to a s s i s t jury there when t h e i s s u e s a r e c o m p l i c a t e d . to should appointment exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n trial, that be to the court. noted involved court the jury 20 is and master shall The i n those trial claims for a jury b e made only " I n view of the powers of C i v i l a c o u r t has nonjury a demand of given Procedure 53(b) t o exceptional cases 1090530 where the legal adequately issues handle are alone, considerably increased which be 469, is i t can 478 a re (1962)(footnotes Watkins, Watkins, 271 supra, i f at Inc., Leather Co., 369 352 scheme h e r e Prod. 771, to t r i a l U.S. U.S. i s not to a at by 249, so jury Litig., n. 258 18 a mere U.S. numerical complex." "Even limited F.R.D. made, exist.'" Buy Dairy v. Howes alleged kickback technical In re 173, as to require "Agent Orange" 174 (E.D.N.Y. 1982)(referencing discovery issues in products-liability to the s p e c i a l m a s t e r was case, problems, the number the the of case a p p r o p r i a t e because of "the magnitude complexity sheer In Citing this La The Cf. in 369 1 959). (quoting or case ' s h o u l d s e l d o m be (1957)). master. 94 rare minimum r e q u i r e d circumstances complicated special Liab. 478 Wood, Cir. held: is a beyond Court to v. Inc. (5th jury showing a is intrinsically 774 Supreme the by "[T]he and a l l o n l y when u n u s u a l Queen, reference over for such indeed Queen, the case F.2d i n r o a d upon the r i g h t and i t will of omitted). that the burden Dairy quantitative analysis, complicated the and met." demonstration too volume witnesses to of the anticipated of documents to be deposed, [and] 21 be discovery reviewed, the of need for ... a 1090530 speedy p r o c e s s i n g the trial date"). transactions allegedly Williams, did a not The appear over F.2d 91 problems i n order number o f a l l e g e d l y i m p r o p e r not occurred 302 a l l discovery The does a to be 10-year large, period. of issue each fact that of 13 requiring 1,500 does not factual findings Burgess v. court attorneys automatically are involved cross-claims, justify and and reference that the same a l l e g e d kickback 2000)(holding involved that Corp., Rule 53 194 scheme. exculpatory class i n excess of Board requested a and an e n t i t l e d to the accounting, interpleaded seeking Cf. Chisolm 538 (E.D. was standard theories are F.R.D. where the seven d i f f e r e n t l e g a l t h e o r i e s plaintiffs, putative Fin. claims to a s p e c i a l master, recovery TranSouth parties third-party case the p l e a d i n g s from the from the contributors). f a c t s of t h i s relief, they regarding because under the The financial that t r i a l individual financial have f i l e d c o u n t e r c l a i m s , v. meet although Cf. ( 4 t h C i r . 19 6 2 ) ( h o l d i n g to exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n r e f e r r i n g to a s p e c i a l master bankruptcy nature of met of liability the Va. action from defendant, and the a 2,500). declaratory and there funds. 22 judgment, i s the issue With regard injunctive of these who is nonjury 1090530 actions, a reference upon a showing Cf. Gary W. to that v. court a master injunctive involved court); F.2d not order and 351 in accorded Co. court's Mazzone, purpose 540 required So. 2d does not master. of does not computation required special report Additionally, is relief at in 1356. ordered were Rejectors, Inc., 269 that d i s t r i c t court did " a l li s s u e s of f a c t and case to a special a special accounting, the master but special of account fact Co. a basis v. an trial an "exceptional involved. that might master to an are The the of damages" 23 an the "matters Ins. of children showing The Cir. appointing that in itself offer Hanover (5th recommendation). limit when of requires i t . and an no only by National in i t s pleadings f o r the accounting. difficult the patent-infringement amended o r d e r condition" v. made implementation in referring comprehensive necessary the be 244-45 a s i g n i f i c a n t number o f be complicated for 240, (8th C i r . 1 9 5 9 ) ( h o l d i n g Board recognized a not condition F.2d oversee J o h n s o n F a r e Box 348, master be to 601 should exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n law" be d i d not where had master some e x c e p t i o n a l Louisiana, 1979)(trial special a special and of Hall v. accounting may for reference to Emmaus Mun. Auth., 38 1090530 F.R.D. 470 parties regarding an (E.D. P a . 1965). A disagreement between the interpleading of disputed exceptional condition warranting funds a reference to a the i s not special master. In L a B u y v . Howes Supreme writ Court affirmed Leather the appellate o f mandamus c o m p e l l i n g order of reference master fortrial. C o . , 352 U.S. court's the d i s t r i c t The C o u r t issuance court o f two c o m p l e x a n t i t r u s t a t 256, t h e cases of a to vacate its to a special stated: "[The t r i a l j u d g e ] r e f e r r e d b o t h s u i t s t o a m a s t e r on the general issue. Furthermore, neither the existence of the alleged conspiracy nor the question o f l i a b i l i t y v e l non h a d been d e t e r m i n e d i n e i t h e r c a s e . These i s s u e s , as w e l l as t h e damages, i f a n y , and the question concerning the issuance o f an injunction, were likewise included in the references. Under a l l of the circumstances, we believe the Court of Appeals was j u s t i f i e d i n f i n d i n g t h e o r d e r s o f r e f e r e n c e were an abuse o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s p o w e r u n d e r R u l e 5 3 ( b ) [ , F e d . R. C i v . P.]. They amounted to l i t t l e less than an abdication of the j u d i c i a l function depriving the p a r t i e s o f a t r i a l b e f o r e t h e c o u r t on t h e b a s i c issues involved i n the l i t i g a t i o n . " The judges Although trial judge in his circuit cites other i n which are currently using referencing a special other cases, cases master he a n d o t h e r a special master. may b e a p p r o p r i a t e i n the appointment of a s p e c i a l master i s determined 24 1090530 by the p a r t i c u l a r appointing facts a special i n each master case. Rule 53 s t a t e s that s h o u l d be t h e e x c e p t i o n a n d n o t t h e r u l e , b u t "a number o f c a s e s h a v e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h i s i s not an impossible Conservation trial Rule to meet." Chem. C o . , 106 F.R.D. 210 court's reference standard justification -- m u l t i p l e 1 3 , A l a . R. (W.D. Mo. i n i t s amended parties C i v . P., United States 1985). order v. The f o r the and c o u n s e l and t h e presence o f and Rule 1 4 , A l a . R. C i v . P., p l e a d i n g s -- w o u l d make t h e u m b r e l l a o f t h e " e x c e p t i o n " l a r g e r than the general Based vacate case rule. on the foregoing, i t s amended order to a special PETITION Lyons, we order of February the t r i a l to 4, 2 0 1 0 , r e f e r r i n g t h e master. GRANTED; WRIT Woodall, Stuart, ISSUED. P a r k e r , Murdock, a n d Shaw, J J . , concur. Cobb, court C . J . , and Smith, J . , recuse 25 themselves.

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.