Dabbieri v. City Boy's Tire & Brake, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Plaintiff Claudia Dabbieri filed a complaint at the Perry County circuit court naming Donald Wease, Alabama Cable and Fiber Repair, PDQ CATV, Inc., City Boy's Tire and Brake, Inc. (CBT), Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, and several fictitiously entities as defendants, asserting claims arising out of a motor-vehicle accident. CBT moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied that motion, and CBT petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to grant CBT's motion to dismiss. CBT is a Florida company, but operates a shop in Perry County. Plaintiff was driving a truck owned by Wease. Wease and Alabama Cable had all four tires on the van replaced. Plaintiff brought the van to CBT to replace the tires. Shortly thereafter, one of the tires failed, causing the van to leave the road and roll. Plaintiff sustained severe injuries. Later investigation would reveal that the tire failure was probably caused by tread separation which might have been caused by the improper sizing of the tires on the van. Finding that there was "limited evidence" that gave no indication that CBT "purposefully availed" itself of the protection of Alabama law, the Supreme Court granted CBT's petition and issued the writ.
Download PDF
Rel: 12/30/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e 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, 2011-2012 1100205 Ex p a r t e C i t y Boy's T i r e and B r a k e , I n c . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Claudia Dabbieri v. C i t y Boy's T i r e and B r a k e , I n c . , e t a l . ) (Perry C i r c u i t PARKER, CV-10-900018) Justice. Claudia Court Court, naming Dabbieri filed as d e f e n d a n t s a complaint Donald i n the Perry Wease, Alabama Circuit Cable and 1100205 Fiber Repair Boy's Tire ("Alabama C a b l e " ) , and Brake, Americas, LLC, asserting claims Perry County. 12(b)(2), and A l a . R. PDQ CATV, I n c . ("PDQ"), I n c . ("CBT"), several arising CBT 1 Continental fictitiously named out of a motor-vehicle moved the t r i a l C i v . P., to court, dismiss City Tire the defendants, accident pursuant Dabbieri's to in Rule claims against i t f o r lack of personal j u r i s d i c t i o n ; that motion denied, a n d CBT p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court directing grant the t r i a l the p e t i t i o n court to grant and i s s u e Facts f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, CBT's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . t o t h e shop and P r o c e d u r a l Springs, she Florida. apparently states operated b y CBT, Dabbieri History which i s located County, i n High was d r i v i n g a 2 0 0 1 C h e v y v a n t h a t co-owned w i t h i n her complaint We the writ. On M a r c h 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 , D a b b i e r i , who r e s i d e s i n P e r r y went was her employer, that, after Wease. purchasing 2 Dabbieri the van i n The nature of the e n t i t y Alabama Cable i s u n c l e a r from the m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e t h e Court. I t i s r e f e r r e d to i n those m a t e r i a l s a s b o t h a n i n d e p e n d e n t c o m p a n y a n d " D o n a l d Wease d/b/a Alabama Cable and F i b e r R e p a i r . " 1 D a b b i e r i a n d Wease a r e b o t h named on t h e b i l l o f s a l e f o r t h e p u r c h a s e o f t h e v a n , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e y b o t h h a d an ownership i n t e r e s t i n the v e h i c l e , but neither the t i t l e nor the r e g i s t r a t i o n f o r t h e van a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e m a t e r i a l s before us. 2 2 1100205 November 2007, Wease a n d Wease and Dabbieri's Alabama employer) Cable (a b u s i n e s s had a l l four van into tires owned by the van on replaced. When 19, Dabbieri brought the 2 0 0 8 , C B T ' s e m p l o y e e s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t one leaking air. employees was of Dabbieri CBT identical including purchased install to the mounting that tire and cash. On the "Declined CBT on the tire on the the shop on van; the The new March of the t i r e s f r o m CBT replaced. balancing and tire had new total as was tire cost, well as $151.83, which D a b b i e r i p a i d i n receipt/statement w o r k done by a new tire i t d i s p o s i n g o f t h e o l d t i r e , was of CBT's of work, below the i t e m i z a t i o n van, was the following language: alignment Lifetime balance, r o t a t i o n , & f l a t repairs w i t h new t i r e p u r c h a s e . T i r e b a l . & r o t a t e r e c e v e r y 6,000 m i l e s r o a d h a z a r d c o v e r s a l l non r e p a i r a b l e t i r e punctures. T i r e s w i l l be p r o r a t e d b y t r e a d d e p t h down t o 2 / 3 2 n d m a r k . Customer Neither Dabbieri statement On is responsible of April nor any instillation employee of CBT [sic]." signed the receipt/ van in work. 15, 2008, D a b b i e r i C o u n t y when one of the t h r e e van, the i . e . , not tire was driving original installed 3 by the replacement t i r e s CBT on March 19, Perry on the 2008, 1100205 failed, causing sustained the severe i n j u r i e s . tire that the van to leave failure the tread part, was p r o b a b l y separation by t h e improper On A p r i l claimed a duty the inspection might the t i r e s that Dabbieri as claimed size which s h e was For tires, Continental to Dabbieri o f t h e new t i r e , CBT including, were t h e v a n were on she s a i d , the fact t h e wrong size. t h a t CBT b r e a c h e d t h a t d u t y t o i n s p e c t ; t h a t , t h e wrong duty, size; she c o n t i n u e d which, she d i d n o t know t h e and t h a t , because she d r i v i n g the van with the she c l a i m s , caused the accident in injured. a l l that responded at least i n on t h e v a n . reveal, that knowledge, wrong and t h e v a n and t o warn h e r o f any dangers on t h e v a n w e r e lacked that separation f i l e d her complaint. a r e s u l t o f CBT's b r e a c h o f t h a t tires of of the t i r e s of the i n s t a l l a t i o n to inspect Dabbieri investigation indicated might have been caused, sizing t h a t , as p a r t and r o l l ; caused by t r e a d 14, 2 0 1 0 , D a b b i e r i had that Later the road appears, the neither complaint or Wease nor Alabama appeared in the Cable case. T i r e t h e A m e r i c a s , LLC ( a l l e g e d l y t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r the f a i l e d tire), also apparently complaint. 4 failed to respond to the 1100205 CBT court its filed a motion lacked personal motion sole to dismiss shareholder to dismiss, jurisdiction an a f f i d a v i t o f CBT, i n w h i c h "1. My name i s J u s t i n shareholder of City Boy's ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as t h e named d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e arguing over from he i t . 3 that the trial CBT a t t a c h e d t o Justin Ellison, the testified: Ellison. I am t h e s o l e T i r e and Brake, I n c . ' [ C B T ] ' ) , who i s o n e o f above s t y l e d cause. "2. [ C B T ] i s a F l o r i d a c o r p o r a t i o n and, as s t a t e d , I am t h e s o l e s h a r e h o l d e r a n d o w n e r o f t h a t corporation. [ C B T ] i s i n the business of automobile and t r u c k m a i n t e n a n c e . "3. I am a r e s i d e n t o f t h e S t a t e o f F l o r i d a a n d have been a c o n t i n u o u s r e s i d e n t o f F l o r i d a f o r over 30 y e a r s . I h a v e n e v e r owned p r o p e r t y i n A l a b a m a and have n e v e r c o n d u c t e d b u s i n e s s t h e r e . "4. [CBT] i s l o c a t e d i n H i g h S p r i n g s , F l o r i d a . I t began b u s i n e s s i n 1991, and has c o n t i n u o u s l y been in business since that date. other "5. [CBT] h a s n e v e r h a d a n y p l a c e than High Springs, F l o r i d a . of business [CBT] "6. The v a s t m a j o r i t y o f t h e b u s i n e s s d o n e b y i s s e r v i c i n g v e h i c l e s of l o c a l residents i n PDQ, w h i c h s o l d t h e v a n t o W e a s e a n d D a b b i e r i , a l s o f i l e d a motion to dismiss f o r l a c k of personal j u r i s d i c t i o n ; that m o t i o n was a l s o d e n i e d , a n d , l i k e CBT, PDQ f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus w i t h t h i s C o u r t . The p e t i t i o n s filed b y PDQ a n d CBT w e r e c o n s o l i d a t e d f o r p u r p o s e s o f b r i e f i n g a n d s u b m i s s i o n , and a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n o f D a b b i e r i ' s b r i e f i s i n r e s p o n s e t o PDQ's p e t i t i o n . H o w e v e r , PDQ's p e t i t i o n was w i t h d r a w n a n d i s no l o n g e r b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t . 3 5 1100205 Alachua County, counties. Florida and some of i t s adjoining " 7 . A t t i m e s , [CBT] w i l l s e r v i c e v e h i c l e s w h i c h a r e t r a v e l i n g t h r o u g h F l o r i d a a n d may be i n n e e d o f service. H o w e v e r , a n y s u c h s e r v i c e w o u l d be an isolated incident. "8. [CBT] o n l y a d v e r t i s e s i n A l a c h u a C o u n t y , F l o r i d a and s u r r o u n d i n g F l o r i d a c o u n t i e s . I t does so by a d v e r t i s i n g i n l o c a l n e w s p a p e r s a n d may send postcards locally i n Alachua County, Florida and surrounding counties. of "9. [CBT] Alabama. has n e v e r done b u s i n e s s i n the State "10. [CBT] h a s n e v e r a d v e r t i s e d i n t h e S t a t e Alabama or s o l i c i t e d b u s i n e s s i n Alabama. of "11. [CBT] Alabama and has Alabama. in of i s n o t l i c e n s e d t o do b u s i n e s s never p a i d taxes i n the State "12. [CBT] h a s n e v e r h a d an o f f i c e o r b u s i n e s s l o c a t i o n i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , and has never e m p l o y e d a n y o n e who was a r e s i d e n t o f t h e S t a t e o f Alabama. in "13. [CBT] h a s n e v e r d o n e a n y b u s i n e s s the State of Alabama. "14. [CBT] h a s n e v e r o w n e d a n y r e a l o r p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d i n the State of Alabama. "15. [CBT] h a s n e v e r p u r p o s e l y of the privilege of conducting Alabama. by agent personal availed itself activities in "16. The s e l l i n g o f a t i r e b y [CBT] a t t h e p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s i n M a r c h o f 2008 t o t h e P l a i n t i f f , C l a u d i a D a b b i e r i , was a s i n g l e i s o l a t e d i n c i d e n t . 6 1100205 "17. To t h e b e s t o f my k n o w l e d g e [CBT] has n e v e r done any b u s i n e s s w i t h t h e p l a i n t i f f , other t h a n on t h e one i n c i d e n t when s h e p u r c h a s e d a t i r e from [CBT]. "18. [CBT] does not solicit business or o t h e r w i s e engage i n any o t h e r p e r s i s t e n t c o u r s e o f conduct or business in the State of Alabama. Accordingly, [CBT] does not derive substantial r e v e n u e f r o m goods and s e r v i c e s u s e d o r consumed i n the State of Alabama nor from s e r v i c e s rendered i n the State of Alabama. "19. A l l c o n t a c t the p l a i n t i f f had w i t h [CBT] was initiated by h e r . [CBT] n e v e r s o l i c i t e d her business. "20. A l t h o u g h [CBT] i s a c o r p o r a t i o n , i t i s e s s e n t i a l l y a s o l e p r o p r i e t o r s h i p as t h e u n d e r s i g n e d a f f i a n t i s t h e o n l y manager o f t h e company. "21. [CBT] h a s o n l y one s t o r e l o c a t e d i n H i g h S p r i n g s , F l o r i d a , w h i c h i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 400 m i l e s from P e r r y County, Alabama. "22. Alabama, [CBT]." Dabbieri To h a v e t o d e f e n d i t s e l f i n P e r r y C o u n t y , would be a substantial hardship upon responded to the motion to d i s m i s s ; attached to h e r r e s p o n s e w e r e a s i n g l e p a g e f r o m an a p p a r e n t l y t h r e e - p a g e printout, dated o p e r a t e d b y CBT 19, June 25, debit-card from a Web site and t h e r e c e i p t / s t a t e m e n t o f w o r k 2008, f o r the t i r e thereafter, 2010, Dabbieri receipt allegedly dated r e p l a c e m e n t p e r f o r m e d b y CBT. supplemented and a statement 7 her of response, work from March Shortly attaching City a Boy's 1100205 Tire & Brake both dated of Alachua, June Inc., located 14, 2 0 0 8 , w h i c h i n Alachua, indicated that work Florida, had been done f o r "Alabama C a b l e " ; a r e c e i p t / s t a t e m e n t o f work f r o m dated October 11, 2008, unidentified "cash Wease Alabama d/b/a affidavit read, evidencing customer"; Cable i n relevant and and an work affidavit Fiber done from Repair." for an "Donald Wease's part: " 1 . My name i s D o n a l d W e a s e . I am a c i t i z e n o f the s t a t e of Alabama. I am o v e r t h e a g e o f 19 a n d am p e r s o n a l l y f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e f a c t s s t a t e d h e r e i n . "2. I am t h e P r e s i d e n t o f A l a b a m a C a b l e a n d Fiber Repair. A l a b a m a C a b l e a n d F i b e r R e p a i r i s an A l a b a m a company w i t h i t s p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s l o c a t e d i n P e r r y County, Alabama. fi "9. O v e r t h e c o u r s e o f t h e l a s t 15 y e a r s I h a v e a l s o had over twenty b u s i n e s s d e a l i n g s w i t h C i t y Boys [ s i c ] T i r e and B r a k e , I n c . , i n b u y i n g t i r e s and servicing vehicles. The s e r v i c e c o n d u c t e d was f o r v e h i c l e s used i n the s t a t e of Alabama. "10. D u r i n g t h a t time I have had t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of C i t y Boys T i r e a n d B r a k e , I n c . , r e g a r d i n g w o r k on t h o s e v e h i c l e s . I was i n A l a b a m a when t h o s e t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s were c o n d u c t e d . "11. City Boys T i r e and B r a k e , I n c . , has provided w a r r a n t i e s f o r t h e goods and services p r o v i d e d t h a t c r e a t e a n o b l i g a t i o n b y t h e m t o me a n d my b u s i n e s s i n A l a b a m a . 8 CBT 1100205 "12. On J u n e 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , C i t y B o y s T i r e a n d B r a k e , I n c . , c o n d u c t e d a t r a n s a c t i o n w i t h me. A t r u e and a c c u r a t e copy of t h e r e c e i p t f o r t h a t s a l e i s a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a s E x h i b i t 3. "13. On O c t o b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , C i t y B o y s T i r e a n d B r a k e , I n c . , c o n d u c t e d a n o t h e r t r a n s a c t i o n w i t h me. A t r u e and a c c u r a t e copy o f t h e r e c e i p t f o r t h a t s a l e i s a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a s E x h i b i t 4." CBT, Justin i n turn, Ellison, submitted i n which he a supplementary affidavit testified: " 1 . My name i s J u s t i n E l l i s o n . I previously s u b m i t t e d a n A f f i d a v i t i n t h i s c a s e d a t e d May 1 2 , 2010, w h i c h was a t t a c h e d a s E x h i b i t ' A ' t o t h e Motion to Dismiss or i n the A l t e r n a t i v e Motion to Quash S e r v i c e h e r e t o f o r e f i l e d by C i t y Boy's T i r e and Brake, Inc. (hereinafter '[CBT]'). The u n d e r s i g n e d A f f i a n t r e - c e r t i f i e s t h e s t a t e m e n t s made i n t h e a f o r e s a i d A f f i d a v i t o f May 1 2 , 2 0 1 0 . "2. The undersigned i s informed that an a f f i d a v i t was made b y D o n a l d W e a s e m a k i n g c e r t a i n a l l e g a t i o n s w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o Mr. Wease's c o n t a c t s with [CBT]. Affiant i s further informed that attached to the a f f i d a v i t a r e two i n v o i c e s , one a d d r e s s e d t o A l a b a m a C a b l e , 307 W e s t G r e e n S t r e e t , M a r i o n , A l a b a m a d a t e d June 14, 2008. This invoice i s from C i t y Boy's T i r e and Brake o f A l a c h u a , I n c . (hereinafter referred to as 'City Boy's of Alachua'). T h a t company i s a s e p a r a t e company f r o m [CBT]. Neither the undersigned A f f i a n t [ ] nor[CBT] own a n y s t o c k i n o r h a v e a n y c o n n e c t i o n w i t h C i t y Boy's of Alachua. A t one t i m e (prior to the accident made the basis of the complaint) the u n d e r s i g n e d A f f i a n t d i d own C i t y B o y ' s o f A l a c h u a ; h o w e v e r , t h a t b u s i n e s s was s o l d t o s e p a r a t e p a r t i e s i n 2007 a n d n e i t h e r t h e A f f i a n t n o r [ C B T ] h a s h a d a n y o w n e r s h i p i n t e r e s t i n t h a t c o m p a n y s i n c e i t was sold. 9 from 1100205 "3. [ C B T ] o n l y does b u s i n e s s out of i t s s o l e place of business i n High Springs, F l o r i d a . I t does not s e r v i c e v e h i c l e s anywhere e x c e p t a t i t s p l a c e of business i n High Springs. "4. The I n v o i c e No. 1 6 2 3 9 9 a t t a c h e d a s E x h i b i t 4 t o t h e a f f i d a v i t o f D o n a l d Wease i n v o l v e d o n l y a dismounting and m o u n t i n g o f a t i r e and r e p l a c i n g v a l v e stems. The w o r k d o n e on t h a t d a t e f o r t h a t i n v o i c e was d o n e s o l e l y a t t h e H i g h S p r i n g s , F l o r i d a place of business of [CBT]. Whoever r e q u e s t e d t h e work as described on said invoice would have i n i t i a t e d the contact with [CBT] at i t s place of business i n High Springs, F l o r i d a . "5. Although [ C B T ] h a s no r e c o r d o f doing b u s i n e s s w i t h D o n a l d Wease o r A l a b a m a C a b l e i n i t s r e c o r d s , i t d o e s n o t d e n y t h a t i t may h a v e d o n e t i r e w o r k a s s h o w n on E x h i b i t 4 a t t a c h e d t o t h e a f f i d a v i t o f Mr. Wease. However, as above s t a t e d , s u c h work w o u l d have been done a t i t s p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s i n High Springs, F l o r i d a . "6. N e i t h e r t h e u n d e r s i g n e d A f f i a n t , n o r a n y o n e a t [ C B T ] has any r e c o l l e c t i o n o f any telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h e y may h a v e h a d w i t h D o n a l d W e a s e . Neither the undersigned A f f i a n t n o r any agent o r employee o f [ C B T ] has ever c o n d u c t e d b u s i n e s s i n Alabama. "7. The t r a n s a c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e plaintiff, C l a u d i a D a b b i e r i , a n d [ C B T ] made t h e b a s i s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t i n v o l v e d t h e r e p l a c e m e n t o f one t i r e a t a c o s t s [ s i c ] o f $ 1 5 1 . 8 3 , w h i c h was p a i d i n c a s h . The o n l y g u a r a n t e e s o r w a r r a n t i e s [ C B T ] g a v e when i t replaced the t i r e f o r the p l a i n t i f f i s that i t would r o t a t e and b a l a n c e the t i r e s at i t s shop i n High Springs, Florida every 6,000 m i l e s , and t h a t i t would replace a non-reparable t i r e puncture with a new t i r e on a p r o r a t e d b a s i s , b a s e d u p o n t r e a d w e a r . Any s u c h r o t a t i n g o r r e p l a c e m e n t w o u l d be done a t i t s shop i n High Springs. 10 1100205 "8. C l a u d i a D a b b i e r i never a v a i l e d h e r s e l f of t h e g u a r a n t e e s o r w a r r a n t i e s made b y [ C B T ] l i s t e d i n p a r a g r a p h 7 above w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o b a l a n c i n g t h e tire s h e was sold or r e p l a c i n g i t due t o a non-repairable tire puncture. "9. [ C B T ] does n o t s o l i c i t b u s i n e s s i n Alabama e i t h e r through sales persons or through a d v e r t i s i n g reasonably c a l c u l a t e d t o reach Alabama. "10. The w e b s i t e o f [ C B T ] o n l y p o s t s o r s e n d s i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e s e r v i c e s , p r o d u c t s and o t h e r information of [CBT]." The trial petitioned court denied this Court CBT's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . f o ra writ Standard CBT then o f mandamus. of Review " ' " ' T h e w r i t o f mandamus i s a d r a s t i c and 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 t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o 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 another adequate remedy; and 4) p r o p e r l y invoked jurisdiction of the court." Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S e r v . S t a t i o n s , Inc., 628 S o . 2 d 5 0 1 , 5 0 3 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; s e e a l s o E x p a r t e Z i g l a r , 669 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 , 134 (Ala. 1 995).' E x p a r t e C a r t e r , [8 07 S o . 2 d 534,] 536 [ ( A l a . 2001)]." "'Ex parte McWilliams, 812 S o . 2 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 1 ( A l a . 2001). "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 trial court's judgment on a p a r t y ' s motion to dismiss f o rl a c k of personal j u r i s d i c t i o n . " Elliott v . V a n K l e e f , 830 S o . 2 d 7 2 6 , 7 2 9 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . "'"'"In c o n s i d e r i n g a Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n 11 1100205 to d i s m i s s f o r want o f p e r s o n a l 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 of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint n o t c o n t r o v e r t e d by t h e defendant's a f f i d a v i t s , Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F . 3 d 2 5 3 ( 1 1 t h Cir. 1996), and Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network Productions, I n c . , 902 F . 2 d 829 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) , a n d 'where t h e plaintiff's complaint and t h e defendant's a f f i d a v i t s conflict, the ... c o u r t m u s t c o n s t r u e a l l reasonable inferences i n favor of the plaintiff.' Robinson, 74 F.3d a t 255 ( q u o t i n g M a d a r a v . Hall, 916 F . 2 d 1 5 1 0 , 1514 ( 1 1 t h Cir. 1990))."' "'"Wenger Tree Serv. v. Royal Truck & Equip., I n c . , 8 5 3 S o . 2 d 8 8 8 , 894 ( 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 95, 7 98 ( 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 jurisdiction, 'the p l a i n t i f f i s then required to substantiate 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 i n t h e 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 h e may n o t merely r e i t e r a t e thef a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s i n the c o m p l a i n t . ' M e r c a n t i l e C a p i t a l , LP v . F e d e r a l 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. A l a . 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 H e a l t h c a r e S y s . , 218 F.3d 1247, 1249 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . 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. 471, 474-75 (D. D e l . 1 9 9 5 ) ('When a defendant files a motion to dismiss pursuant t o Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), and supports that motion with affidavits, p l a i n t i f f i s required to controvert those 12 1100205 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 o r o t h e r competent evidence i n order t o s u r v i v e the m o t i o n . ' ) ( c i t i n g Time S h a r e V a c a t i o n C l u b v . A t l a n t i c R e s o r t s , L t d . , 735 F . 2 d 6 1 , 63 (3d C i r . 1 9 8 4 ) ) . " "'Ex 226, Ex parte 2007) p a r t e C o v i n g t o n P i k e Dodge, 229-30 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . ' " I n c . , 90 4 Duck 2d Boo Int'l Co., 985 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B u f k i n , So. 900 , So. 2d 905-06 ( A l a . 936 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 4 4 - 4 5 ( A l a . 2006)). Discussion A l a b a m a c o u r t s may e x e r c i s e p e r s o n a l out-of-state R. d e f e n d a n t o n l y as p e r m i t t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r an by Rule 4.2(b), A l a . C i v . P.: "Rule 4.2(b), A l a . R. C i v . P., Alabama's ' l o n g - a r m ' p r o v i s i o n , g o v e r n s w h e t h e r an A l a b a m a c o u r t may e x e r c i s e p e r s o n a l jurisdiction o v e r an out-of-state defendant. In p e r t i n e n t p a r t , that rule states: "'(b) B a s i s f o r O u t - o f - S t a t e Service. 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 o f t h i s s t a t e upon a p e r s o n 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 o r e n t i t y has such c o n t a c t s w i t h this state that the prosecution of the action against 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 United States ' "This r u l e extends the personal jurisdiction of 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 13 1100205 United States and Alabama Constitutions. When a p p l y i n g R u l e 4 . 2 ( b ) , t h i s C o u r t has i n t e r p r e t e d t h e due process guaranteed under the Alabama Constitution as c o e x t e n s i v e w i t h that guaranteed under the U n i t e d States Constitution." Hiller Invs., I n c . v. I n s u l t e c h 1114-15 ( A l a . 2006). Civ. we of P., due Palmer look process. & Cay, when not to s t a t u t e s As this I n c . , 501 of s i m p l y a p p l y i n g and Thus, Court So. G r o u p , I n c . , 957 applying Rule So. 2d 4.2, A l a . R. or r u l e s , but to the essence stated 2d 459, f o r m u l a s , we r e l y 461 in Dillon Equities ( A l a . 1986), on p r i n c i p l e s o f v. instead fairness justice: "'"[D]ue process r e q u i r e s only that i n order to s u b j e c t a d e f e n d a n t t o a j u d g m e n t i n p e r s o n a m , i f he b e n o t p r e s e n t w i t h i n t h e t e r r i t o r y o f t h e f o r u m , he have c e r t a i n minimum c o n t a c t s w i t h i t s u c h t h a t t h e maintenance of t h e s u i t does not o f f e n d 'traditional notions of f a i r play and s u b s t a n t i a l justice.'"' McGee v . I n t e r n a t i o n a l L i f e I n s . C o . , 355 U.S. 220 (1957), quoting International Shoe Co. v. W a s h i n g t o n , 326 U.S. 3 1 0 , 3 1 6 , ( 1 9 4 5 ) . Alabama's long-arm statute ( R u l e 4.2, A l a . R. C i v . P.) has been interpreted by this Court to extend the j u r i s d i c t i o n of Alabama c o u r t s to the permissible l i m i t s o f due p r o c e s s . D e S o t a c h o , I n c . v. V a l n i t I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . , 350 S o . 2 d 447 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) , Duke v . Y o u n g , 496 S o . 2 d 37 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . "Alabama's long-arm p r o c e d u r e f o r s e r v i c e of process i s not l i m i t e d to 'rigid transactional categories' or subject to a mechanical formula. 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 S o . 2 d 141 (Ala. 1983). Instead, the relevant facts and a t t e n d a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s m u s t be e x a m i n e d a n d t h e 14 1111, 1100205 r e l a t i o n s h i p among t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e f o r u m , a n d t h e litigation analyzed to determine i f the defendant has sufficient 'minimum contacts' so that 'the maintenance of the s u i t does not o f f e n d " t r a d i t i o n a l notions of fair p l a y and substantial justice."' I n t e r n a t i o n a l S h o e Co. v . W a s h i n g t o n . " Personal specific jurisdiction explained So. 3d jurisdiction 511, and is analyzed under general j u r i s d i c t i o n . i n Ex parte Citizens 516 (Ala. Property theories As Insurance this 2009): 15 Court Corp., " P e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n c a n r e s t e i t h e r on the theory of specific jurisdiction, when 'a State e x e r c i s e s p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over a defendant i n a s u i t a r i s i n g out of or r e l a t e d to the d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e f o r u m , ' H e l i c o p t e r o s N a c i o n a l e s de C o l o m b i a , S.A. v . H a l l , 466 U.S. 4 0 8 , 414 n. 8, 104 S. C t . 18 68 , 8 0 L. E d . 2 d 404 (1 9 8 4 ) , o r on the t h e o r y o f g e n e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , 'when t h e c a u s e o f action does not arise out of or relate to the f o r e i g n c o r p o r a t i o n ' s a c t i v i t i e s i n the forum S t a t e , [but] ... there are sufficient [continuous and systematic] contacts between the State and the foreign corporation.' I d . a t 4 1 4 - 1 6 , 104 S. Ct. 18 68; s e e a l s o Ex p a r t e C o v i n g t o n P i k e D o d g e , I n c . , [904 So. 2d 226 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ] . T h i s C o u r t h a s s t a t e d , however, t h a t r e g a r d l e s s of whether the i s s u e of j u r i s d i c t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d under specific-jurisdiction analysis or under general-jurisdiction analysis, '[t]he critical q u e s t i o n w i t h regard to the n o n r e s i d e n t defendant's contacts [with the forum state] i s whether the c o n t a c t s are such t h a t the n o n r e s i d e n t defendant "'should reasonably a n t i c i p a t e being haled into c o u r t ' " i n t h e f o r u m s t a t e . ' E l l i o t t [v. Van Kleef], 830 So. 2d [ 7 2 6 , ] a t 730 [(Ala. 2002 )] (quoting 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, 473, 105 S. C t . 2 1 7 4 , 85 L. E d . 2d 528 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n of 15 1100205 turn U.S. World-Wide 286, 2 95, (1980) Dabbieri (emphasis o v e r CBT whether the under trial Corp. 559, v. 62 trial court 444 490 that the in this court case; had thus, 4 personal lacked the general issue before jurisdiction us over CBT of j u d i c i a l power i s not a specific-contacts analysis. "As a general rule, the lawful unless privilege conducting exercise the defendant of thus invoking the 'purposefully activities benefits and 2780, 2785 (2011) (1958)). (1985), the exercise of In Burger K i n g United States specific defendant required defendant of forum (quoting a directing avails within protections M c I n t y r e Mach., L t d . v. N i c a s t o , 253 Woodson, L.Ed. 2d added))." acknowledges jurisdiction is Volkswagen 100 S. Ct. v. C o r p . v. Supreme of , an toward J. 357 S.Ct. U.S. 235, 471 explained over the 131 Rudzewicz, purposeful its activity State, i t s laws.'" Denckla, Court jurisdiction showing of of forum the U.S. Hanson itself U.S. 462 that the out-of-state action residents by the of the state: "Where a forum seeks to assert specific j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r an o u t - o f - s t a t e d e f e n d a n t who has not consented to s u i t there, this 'fair warning' See D a b b i e r i ' s response i n o p p o s i t i o n d i s m i s s , at 5 ("This i s a case of s p e c i f i c 4 16 t o CBT's m o t i o n t o jurisdiction."). 1100205 requirement is satisfied i f the defendant has ' p u r p o s e f u l l y d i r e c t e d ' h i s a c t i v i t i e s at r e s i d e n t s o f t h e f o r u m , K e e t o n v. H u s t l e r M a g a z i n e , I n c . , 465 U.S. 770 , 774 (1 9 8 4 ) , and the l i t i g a t i o n r e s u l t s from a l l e g e d i n j u r i e s t h a t ' a r i s e out of or r e l a t e to' those a c t i v i t i e s , Helicopteros Nacionales de C o l o m b i a , S.A. v . H a l l , 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). Thus ' [ t ] h e f o r u m S t a t e does not e x c e e d i t s p o w e r s u n d e r t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e i f i t a s s e r t s p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over a c o r p o r a t i o n that d e l i v e r s i t s products into the stream of commerce with the e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t t h e y w i l l be p u r c h a s e d b y c o n s u m e r s i n t h e f o r u m S t a t e ' and t h o s e p r o d u c t s s u b s e q u e n t l y i n j u r e forum consumers. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, supra, 444 U.S. [286], at 297-298 [(1980)]. ... And with respect to i n t e r s t a t e contractual o b l i g a t i o n s , we have emphasized that p a r t i e s who ' r e a c h o u t b e y o n d one s t a t e a n d create continuing relationships and obligations with c i t i z e n s of another s t a t e ' are s u b j e c t to r e g u l a t i o n and sanctions in the other State for the consequences of t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s . T r a v e l e r s Health A s s n . v . V i r g i n i a , 339 U.S. 643, 647 (1950). See a l s o McGee v . I n t e r n a t i o n a l L i f e I n s u r a n c e Co., 355 U.S. 220, 222-223 (1957)." 471 U.S. t o be the than at 472-73. purposeful, forum state The the must a c c i d e n t a l or S u p r e m e C o u r t w e n t on out-of-state be deliberate to e x p l a i n defendant's and contacts substantial, with rather random: "This 'purposeful availment' requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of 'random,' ' f o r t u i t o u s , ' or 'attenuated' c o n t a c t s , K e e t o n v. H u s t l e r M a g a z i n e , I n c . , 465 U.S., a t 774; W o r l d - W i d e V o l k s w a g e n C o r p . v. Woodson, s u p r a , 444 U.S., at 299, or o f t h e ' u n i l a t e r a l a c t i v i t y o f a n o t h e r p a r t y or a third person,' Helicopteros Nacionales de 17 that 1100205 C o l o m b i a , S.A. v. H a l l , s u p r a , 466 U.S., at 417. J u r i s d i c t i o n i s p r o p e r , however, where the contacts proximately result f r o m a c t i o n s by the defendant himself that create a 'substantial connection' with the forum State. McGee v. International Life I n s u r a n c e Co., supra, 355 U.S., a t 223; see also K u l k o v . C a l i f o r n i a S u p e r i o r C o u r t , s u p r a , 436 U.S. [84], at 94, n. 7 [(1978)]. Thus where the d e f e n d a n t ' d e l i b e r a t e l y ' has e n g a g e d i n s i g n i f i c a n t activities within a State, Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., supra, 4 65 U.S., a t 781, or has c r e a t e d ' c o n t i n u i n g o b l i g a t i o n s ' b e t w e e n h i m s e l f and r e s i d e n t s o f t h e f o r u m , T r a v e l e r s H e a l t h A s s n . v. Virginia, 339 U.S., at 648, he manifestly has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there, and because his activities are s h i e l d e d by 'the b e n e f i t s and p r o t e c t i o n s ' o f the forum's laws i t i s p r e s u m p t i v e l y not u n r e a s o n a b l e to r e q u i r e him t o submit t o the b u r d e n s of l i t i g a t i o n i n t h a t f o r u m as w e l l . " 471 U.S. On at appeal, Dodge, Inc., argument dismiss was Plymouth trial in 87 6 2d Troncalli, case, (Ala. court's automobile a Georgia alleging contract, Court in support denial of its from Troncalli its motion to faith, of Chrysler dealership. Case misrepresentation, claims. Discussing j u r i s d i c t i o n over the 18 of David Case, a r e s i d e n t other stated: Plymouth 2003), automobile bad and l a c k of p e r s o n a l this Troncalli Chrysler In T r o n c a l l i , an Inc., b r e a c h of 459 trial improper. court's that So. the Dodge, omitted). c i t e s Ex p a r t e purchased sued deceit, (footnote CBT that Alabama, later 475-76 the defendant 1100205 "Case c o n c e d e s , a s he m u s t , t h a t Troncalli's j u r i s d i c t i o n a l o b j e c t i o n 'might be c o r r e c t i f [Case] simply drove to [ T r o n c a l l i ' s ] Georgia l o c a t i o n t o p u r c h a s e t h e v e h i c l e w i t h o u t b e i n g i n d u c e d t o do so.' ... T h i s i s s o , he a r g u e s , b e c a u s e p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , w h i c h p u r p o r t s t o be b a s e d s o l e l y on an i s o l a t e d s a l e b y a n o u t - o f - s t a t e d e f e n d a n t t o t h e i n - s t a t e p l a i n t i f f , i s g e n e r a l l y u n s u s t a i n a b l e . See Network P r o f e s s i o n a l s , I n c .v. Network I n t ' l , L t d . , 146 F.R.D. 1 7 9 , 181 n . 1 (D. M i n n . 1 9 9 3 ) ('The d u e p r o c e s s a n a l y s i s f o c u s e s on a d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e forum, not i t s c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e p l a i n t i f f ; thus, an isolated sale will not support jurisdiction, even i f t h e cause o f a c t i o n arises from t h e s a l e . ' ) ; see a l s o Wines v. Lake Havasu Boat M f g . , I n c . , 846 F . 2 d 40 ( 8 t h C i r . 1 988 ) ; C h u n g v . NANA D e v . C o r p . 7 8 3 F . 2 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 2 6 ( 4 t h C i r . 1 9 8 6 ) (a s a l e c o m p r i s i n g no m o r e t h a n a n ' " i s o l a t e d " o r " a t t e n u a t e d " s i n g l e t r a n s a c t i o n ... h a s a l w a y s b e e n deemed i n a d e q u a t e t o s a t i s f y due p r o c e s s ' ) ; C h a r i a v . C i g a r e t t e R a c i n g Team, I n c . , 5 8 3 F . 2 d 1 8 4 , 189 (5th C i r . 1978) ( ' f o u r s p o r a d i c and i s o l a t e d s a l e s ' d i d not support p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n ) ; B u t l e r v. B e e r A c r o s s A m e r i c a , 83 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 6 1 (N.D. A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; a c c o r d S t u a r t v . S p a d e m a n , 772 F . 2 d 1 1 8 5 ( 5 t h C i r . 1985); Benjamin v. Western Boat B u i l d i n g Corp., 472 F . 2 d 7 2 3 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) ; D o u g l a s v . M o d e r n Aero, I n c . , 954 F . S u p p . 1 2 0 6 (N.D. O h i o 1997); Highway Auto Sales, I n c . v. Auto-Konig of S c o t t s d a l e , I n c . , 943 F . S u p p . 825 (N.D. O h i o 1 9 9 6 ) . "Of particular relevance i s whether the plaintiff initiated the sale or contact. See M a d i s o n C o n s u l t i n g G r o u p v . S o u t h C a r o l i n a , 7 52 F . 2 d 1193 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) ; CBP R e s . , I n c . v . I n g r e d i e n t Res. Corp., 954 F . S u p p . 1 1 0 6 (M.D. N.C. 1 996); Regent L i g h t i n g Corp. v. American L i g h t i n g Concept, Inc., 25 F . S u p p . 2 d 705 (M.D. N.C. 1997) ('the c o n t a c t s t o be c o n s i d e r e d f o r p u r p o s e s o f p e r s o n a l jurisdiction are those actually generated by Defendants, n o t those c r e a t e d by t h e u n i l a t e r a l a c t s of Plaintiff'); W e l l s American Corp. v. Sunshine 19 1100205 E l e c t r o n i c s , 717 F . S u p p . 1 1 2 1 , 1123 (D.S.C. 1 9 8 9 ) ; American Stair Corp. v. R e n a t a C o n s t r . Co., 62 5 F . S u p p . 136 (N.D. I l l . 1 9 8 5 ) . " T h u s , s o m e t h i n g m o r e t h a n an i s o l a t e d contact i n i t i a t e d b y an i n - s t a t e p l a i n t i f f i s r e q u i r e d t o satisfy the 'purposeful-availment' prong of the due-process analysis. 'Something more' might i n v o l v e ' p r i o r n e g o t i a t i o n s and c o n t e m p l a t e d f u t u r e consequences, along with ... t h e p a r t i e s ' a c t u a l course of d e a l i n g . ' 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, 463 (1985) (emphasis added). ' S o m e t h i n g m o r e ' m i g h t be f o u n d ' w h e r e t h e d e f e n d a n t " d e l i b e r a t e l y " has engaged i n s i g n i f i c a n t activities within [Alabama] ... o r has created "continuing obligations" between himself and residents of [Alabama].' 471 U.S. a t 4 7 5 - 7 6 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . " 876 So. 2d at Dabbieri (quoting 464-65. points Burger obligations'" to King) between Alabama p l a i n t i f f this that the might Court's the quotation creation out-of-state make an due-process a n a l y s i s . " brief that "City 876 Boy's ongoing argues, based business therefore "isolated contact" availment' warranties She Dabbieri's knew, when D a b b i e r i Wease purchased the t i r e 20 argues i n her continuing brief, that and the prong of the created on W e a s e ' s a f f i d a v i t , relationship with "'continuing and So. 2 d a t 4 6 5 . o b l i g a t i o n s t o an A l a b a m a r e s i d e n t . " Dabbieri of Troncalli defendant otherwise s u f f i c i e n t to s a t i s f y the "'purposeful in CBT at 16. had an Dabbieri on M a r c h and 19, 1100205 2008, t h a t argues Dabbieri that the was an A l a b a m a c i t i z e n . purchase a c c o m p a n y i n g p r o m i s e by CBT to replace CBT's p a r t within CBT be to i t i f i t failed, would of this the State, into court case -- in this necessary, to repair or with balance a continuing i n Alabama. CBT's replace business i n High Springs, and tire, further the the tire obligation thus making i t f o r e s e e a b l e haled obligation new rotate created Dabbieri promise the F l o r i d a -- But to tire the or on that limited rotate i n v o l v e s no i f i t s place at and, of obligation in Alabama. Dabbieri Chevrolet, this Inc., Court [automobile] the also directs 555 held So. that of publications, borders of before this volume" t i r e Court 109, purposefully laws when "soliciting i t in this indicate parte 1989), "a in availed from CBT which itself of through beyond the provides c a s e , and that Pope large-volume Dabbieri store that advertised across 21 Ex advertised sales However, not to (Ala. had Pope a p p l i e s does 114 defendant, Georgia." o f how attention the Alabama regional explanation 2d dealership," protection our no the was evidence "a large- a multistate region. 1100205 Similarly, (Ala. but 1993), again Pope, Dabbieri cites L o w r y v . Owens, 621 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 2 a case f a c t u a l l y s i m i l a r t o a n d r e l y i n g on P o p e , w i t h o u t an e x p l a n a t i o n the decision i n Lowry as t o i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y . turned on the fact that defendant's a d v e r t i s i n g t a r g e t e d Alabama r e s i d e n t s . CBT does Lowry, much not advertise the T r o n c a l l i Court more than plaintiffs." also S o . 2 d 713 exercise of corporation operations however, Alabama isolated cites (Ala. personal that that contacts those 1988), this i n which jurisdiction Pope and "involved by in-state case also subsidiary. i s inapplicable. subsidiary, n o r does argues International, Inc., this over was a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d a misapplication Court cases initiated of C a l i f o r n i a , Court an Like CBT Pope does the reference of Asahi Metal 480 U.S. 102 and Lowry, n o t have an i n Alabama. i n T r o n c a l l i to 876 S o . 2 d a t 4 6 5 , Industry Co. v . Superior (1987), a u t h o r e d by J u s t i c e O'Connor, and she "urges t h e C o u r t t o t a k e t h i s 22 the international i t do a n y b u s i n e s s that upheld i n t h e management and " s o m e t h i n g more t h a n an i s o l a t e d c o n t a c t , " is As n o t e d , In d i s c u s s i n g Boyd v. U-Haul of i t s Alabama Dabbieri noted the 876 S o . 2 d a t 4 6 7 . Dabbieri 527 i n Alabama. Like opportunity to 1100205 explain also that [Ex p a r t e had the e f f e c t that was D B I , I n c . , 23 S o . 3 d 635 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , ] of overruling announced for first brief, Troncalli Court's equivalent of "stream-of-commerce-plus" Court advanced and by 20-21. time Dabbieri's this at the the 'something reference others Justice rejecting the therefore require Dabbieri to have used O'Connor's a different Court's decision Ultimately, however, the d i s t i n c t i o n cited by D a b b i e r i A l l o y Wheels I n t e r n a t i o n a l , B r o w n v . ABUS K r a n s y s t e m e shorthand the theory and argument outcome caused did into i n the place n o t happen here. defective, would i n Troncalli. between "stream-of- i s irrelevant -- A s a h i , to this DBI, Ex parte L t d . , 882 S o . 2 d 819 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , GmbH, 11 S o . 3 d 788 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) , a n d involved t h e s t r e a m o f commerce, t h a t harm that than the E x p a r t e M c I n n i s , 820 S o . 2 d 795 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) -- e a c h a product, placed the i s the i n Asahi) by t h i s The c a s e s more" describe opinion commerce" and " s t r e a m - o f - c o m m e r c e - p l u s " that (a common to test Troncalli." argues "something outcome d i c t a t e d case. in "stream-of-commerce-plus" us t o r e a c h more' to which The t i r e and i t d i d n o t cause 23 the stream CBT s o l d harm took allegedly it. to Dabbieri That was n o t t o h e r o r anyone else. 1100205 Dabbieri's product cause that of action entered against Alabama CBT does the stream through not involve of commerce; r a t h e r , t h i s c a s e i n v o l v e s an a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n t i n s p e c t i o n consequent failure inspection and Florida. The in warn. failure warn the alleged occurred, i f d e b a t e b e t w e e n " s t r e a m - o f - c o m m e r c e " and "stream- i s , therefore, brief, simply despite Cir. Co. v. Lake Shore Dabbieri's inapplicable. S t a t e s Court of A p p e a l s f o r the F o u r t h Insurance negligent a l l , in her to Both and at of-commerce-plus" argument to a Inc., 886 Circuit F.2d As extended the United said in Federal 654, 659-60 1989): "[A] 'stream of commerce' theory of personal j u r i s d i c t i o n has no a p p l i c a b i l i t y here. Factors t h a t m i g h t make s u c h a t h e o r y a p p l i c a b l e , s u c h as marketing and a d v e r t i s i n g a p r o d u c t f o r the forum state, are absent. Asahi, 480 U.S. at 112 (O'Connor, J . ) . The c a s e a l s o a p p e a r s t o be one i n which 'a consumer fortuitously transports a defendant's product' i n t o a forum r a t h e r than one i n v o l v i n g a forum where 'the d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o d u c t was regularly sold.' Id. at 119 (Brennan, J., c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e j u d g m e n t ) . F i n a l l y , t h e c a s e i s n o t one i n v o l v i n g a ' r e g u l a r course of d e a l i n g t h a t r e s u l t s i n d e l i v e r i e s ' of m u l t i p l e u n i t s i n t o a forum 'annually over a p e r i o d of several years.' Id. at 122 (Stevens, J., c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e j u d g m e n t ) . Whether p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n would a t t a c h i n these l a t t e r circumstances u n d e r a ' s t r e a m of commerce' t h e o r y i s s i m p l y not b e f o r e us." 24 (4th 1100205 Dabbieri also cites Kehoe v. Boat Sara T., I n c . , 653 F . S u p p . 853 (D. M a s s . 1 9 8 7 ) , a n d S i e r r a v . A B e t t e r w a y Rent-A- Car, I n c . , 863 S o . 2 d 358 t o show that language from ( F l a . D i s t . C t . App. 2003), stream-of-commerce cases has been t o s e r v i c e - r e l a t e d , as o p p o s e d t o p r o d u c t - r e l a t e d , Kehoe and Sierra, under a general-contacts specific-contacts In this 725 stated that or f a l l s an isolated Troncalli, affidavit, or not agent 876 Troncalli, of a So. that at a n d owns Alabama 4 65. the 25 case."'" i n this in-state Ellison 15 i n this no Like tire case "more than plaintiff." stated in his I t h a s no i n Alabama. a n d makes of an As citizens. sale [each] the facts by no p r o p e r t y i n Alabama jurisdiction h e r e was n o t h i n g initiated 2d of supra, I.M.C., I n c . , 485 S o . 2 d 7 2 4 , the transaction CBT's under Corp., of personal facts argues CBT d o e s no b u s i n e s s advertise jurisdiction Insurance issue Ex p a r t e CBT contact here business "[t]he (quoting that personal and n o t , as h e r e , Property on t h e u n i q u e ( A l a . 1986)). demonstrate litigation. analysis. Citizens 3 d a t 515 involved analysis parte Court '"stands So. Ex however, applied office State. CBT does effort to obtain the the transaction in to Dabbieri was an 1100205 "'"isolated ... single transaction,'" contact "'"created by 876 2d (quoting So. at argues that, because CBT should lead have to 465 litigation other cases). 2d gave the van was that any f a u l t y work in CBT Alabama. her as 464, a Plaintiff."'" Alabama licensed But, at Dabbieri, she that foreseen So. the u n i l a t e r a l a c t s of the because saw 876 in however, address and Alabama, CBT on i t s part might the United States Supreme C o u r t s a i d i n W o r l d - W i d e V o l k s w a g e n C o r p . v. Woodson, 444 295-97 does U.S. justify 286, the exercise (1980), of " f o r e s e e a b i l i t y " alone personal jurisdiction: " A p p l y i n g these p r i n c i p l e s to the case at hand, we f i n d i n t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e us a t o t a l a b s e n c e o f those a f f i l i a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t are a n e c e s s a r y predicate to any exercise of state-court jurisdiction. Petitioners carry on no activity w h a t s o e v e r i n Oklahoma. T h e y c l o s e no s a l e s and p e r f o r m no s e r v i c e s t h e r e . They a v a i l t h e m s e l v e s of none o f t h e p r i v i l e g e s and b e n e f i t s o f Oklahoma l a w . They solicit no business there either through salespersons or through advertising reasonably c a l c u l a t e d to reach the S t a t e . Nor does t h e record show t h a t t h e y r e g u l a r l y s e l l c a r s a t w h o l e s a l e o r r e t a i l to Oklahoma customers or r e s i d e n t s or that t h e y i n d i r e c t l y , t h r o u g h o t h e r s , s e r v e or seek to s e r v e the Oklahoma market. In s h o r t , respondents seek to base jurisdiction on one, isolated occurrence and whatever inferences can be drawn therefrom. ... "It is argued, however, that because an a u t o m o b i l e i s m o b i l e by i t s v e r y d e s i g n and p u r p o s e i t was ' f o r e s e e a b l e ' t h a t the Robinsons' A u d i would 26 not 1100205 cause i n j u r y i n Oklahoma. Yet 'foreseeability' alone has never been a s u f f i c i e n t benchmark f o r p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r t h e Due P r o c e s s Clause. " I f f o r e s e e a b i l i t y were t h e c r i t e r i o n , a l o c a l C a l i f o r n i a t i r e r e t a i l e r c o u l d be f o r c e d t o d e f e n d in Pennsylvania when a b l o w o u t o c c u r s t h e r e , see E r l a n g e r M i l l s , I n c . v. Cohoes F i b r e M i l l s , I n c . , 2 3 9 F . 2 d 502 , 507 (4th C i r . 1956); a Wisconsin s e l l e r o f a d e f e c t i v e a u t o m o b i l e j a c k c o u l d be h a l e d before a d i s t a n t c o u r t f o r damage c a u s e d i n New J e r s e y , R e i l l y v. P h i l T o l k a n P o n t i a c , I n c . , 372 F.Supp. 1205 ( N . J . 1 9 7 4 ) ; o r a F l o r i d a s o f t - d r i n k concessionaire could be summoned to Alaska to account f o r i n j u r i e s h a p p e n i n g t h e r e , see Uppgren v. E x e c u t i v e A v i a t i o n S e r v i c e s , I n c . , 304 F . S u p p . 1 6 5 , 170-171 (Minn. 1969). Every s e l l e r of c h a t t e l s would i n e f f e c t appoint the c h a t t e l h i s agent f o r service of process. His a m e n a b i l i t y to s u i t would t r a v e l with the c h a t t e l . ... "This is not to say, of course, that foreseeability is wholly irrelevant. But the foreseeability that is critical t o due process a n a l y s i s i s n o t t h e mere l i k e l i h o o d t h a t a p r o d u c t w i l l f i n d i t s way i n t o t h e f o r u m S t a t e . Rather, i t i s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n d u c t and c o n n e c t i o n with t h e f o r u m S t a t e a r e s u c h t h a t he s h o u l d reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. See K u l k o v . C a l i f o r n i a S u p e r i o r C o u r t , s u p r a , 436 U.S. [ 8 4 ] , a t 97-98 [ ( 1 9 7 8 ) ] ; S h a f f e r v. H e i t n e r , 433 U.S. [ 1 8 6 ] , a t 216 [ ( 1 977 ) ] , and see i d . , a t 217-219 (Stevens, J . , concurring i n judgment). The Due Process Clause, by ensuring the 'orderly a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e l a w s , ' I n t e r n a t i o n a l S h o e Co. v . W a s h i n g t o n , 326 U.S., a t 3 1 9 , g i v e s a d e g r e e o f predictability to the l e g a l system that allows potential defendants to structure t h e i r primary c o n d u c t w i t h some m i n i m u m a s s u r a n c e a s t o w h e r e t h a t conduct w i l l and w i l l not render them l i a b l e t o suit." 27 1100205 (Footnote omitted.) Applying from CBT, we these principles conclude occurrence" that to Dabbieri's tire purchase an "isolated t h a t t h a t t r a n s a c t i o n was was not sufficient to cause CBT to "reasonably a n t i c i p a t e being h a l e d i n t o c o u r t " i n Alabama. this Court Inc., [Ms. 2011): recently "We a contract 1177 Computer in in would v i o l a t e the So. been to the (Ala. recognized of goods (Quoting based Volkswagen that by t h e t r i a l the and on an Land 953 on the is Vista Inc., that So. & 2d Supreme our own exercise court i n this of case process. presented done Products, , & Sys., conclude o v e r CBT Steel 3d purchase Therefore, we 1 'explicitly Programs states in i t s reply directed CBT due evidence having the World-Wide Troncalli, personal jurisdiction CBT for ( A l a . 2006).) language decision 2011] No. basis for jurisdiction.'" L.L.C. v. Court's 29, parte have i n p r e v i o u s cases insufficient 1170, i n Ex 1091781, J u l y one-time Equip., said As by State by [CBT] brief that Dabbieri to show of Alabama." continues: 28 " [ n ] o t h i n g i n any shows anything i t having CBT's r e p l y any of at a l l contact brief, at 5. 1100205 "The only thing [CBT] d i d was sell a tire to D a b b i e r i , who i n i t i a t e d t h e c o n t r a c t , g a v e t h e m a n Alabama address, and, a c c o r d i n g t o D a b b i e r i , b u t d e n i e d b y [ C B T ] , f a i l e d t o w a r n h e r t h e t i r e s on h e r van were t h e wrong s i z e . This s i n g l e event took p l a c e e n t i r e l y i n H i g h S p r i n g s , F l o r i d a , a t t h e shop o f [CBT] a n d r e s u l t e d f r o m t h e u n i l a t e r a l activity of D a b b i e r i . T h i s i s t h e o n l y c o n t a c t enumerated by D a b b i e r i which i s r e l a t e d to her cause of a c t i o n . Any c o n t a c t [CBT] may h a v e h a d w i t h D o n a l d Wease w o u l d n o t be r e l a t e d t o p l a i n t i f f ' s c a u s e o f a c t i o n against [CBT]." CBT's reply before this availed" brief, Court itself that i t should at 5. agree. The no i n d i c a t i o n gives We that limited CBT of the p r o t e c t i o n of the laws reasonably have e x p e c t e d evidence "purposefully of Alabama or t o be h a l e d into court t h a t CBT had a clear here. Conclusion B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we legal right thus, the dismiss. t o have trial We Dabbieri's court erred therefore grant o f mandamus, d i r e c t i n g conclude claims in against denying the p e t i t i o n the t r i a l 29 court i t dismissed; CBT's motion and i s s u e the to vacate to writ i t s order 1100205 denying CBT's dismissing Dabbieri's PETITION Malone, JJ., motion to dismiss action GRANTED; WRIT C . J . , and as t o and to enter an order Main, and Wise, CBT. ISSUED. Stuart, Bolin, Shaw, J J . , concur i n the concur. Woodall and Murdock, 30 result.
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.
