Apel Steel Corporation v. JS Nationwide Erectors, Inc.

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

Northstar Battery Company, LLC ("Northstar"), petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Cullman Circuit Court to vacate its order denying Northstar's motion to dismiss the action filed against it by Apel Steel Corporation ("Apel") and to enter an order dismissing the action for lack of in personam jurisdiction. The case stemmed from a contract in which Apel Steel was working as a subcontractor for a battery manufacturing plant in Springfield, Missouri. Northstar Battery, owner of the plant, contracted with Walton Construction to serve as general contractor. Apel had further subcontracted a portion of its work to JS Nationwide, who erected structural steel at the plant. Sparks from welding started a fire which resulted in the destruction of property/equipment, and caused heat and smoke damage in the affected area of the plant. The contract between Apel and Walton contained a provision by which Apel allegedly waived all rights against JS Nationwide. Counts against Northstar alleged negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, misrepresentation and conspiracy. Northstar moved to dismiss citing lack of personal jurisdiction. Finding that Apel failed to carry its jurisdictional burden, the Supreme Court held that the trial court "clearly" erred in denying Northstar's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court granted Northstar's petition and issued the writ.

Download PDF
N o t i c e : 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 sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ({334) 229-0649), o f any 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 be made b e f o r e the 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, 2011-2 012 1110612 Ex p a r t e N o r t h s t a r B a t t e r y Company, LLC PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e ; Apel S t e e l C o r p o r a t i o n V. JS Nationwide E r e c t o r s , Inc., et a l . ) (Cullman C i r c u i t Court, CV-10-163) WOODALL, J u s t i c e . N o r t h s t a r B a t t e r y Company, LLC ( " N o r t h s t a r " ) , this Court for a writ o f mandamus directing petitions t h e Cullman 1110612 C i r c u i t Court t o v a c a t e i t s o r d e r denying N o r t h s t a r ' s motion to dismiss the Corporation action ("Apel") and filed against to enter an it order a c t i o n f o r l a c k of i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n . by Apel Steel dismissing We grant the the p e t i t i o n and i s s u e the w r i t . I. Apel's first F a c t u a l and P r o c e d u r a l Background claims against N o r t h s t a r are amended c o m p l a i n t , a s s e r t e d i n Apel's which named as d e f e n d a n t s not only N o r t h s t a r , a l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y company whose p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s i s l o c a t e d i n S p r i n g f i e l d , M i s s o u r i , but a l s o (1) JS Nationwide E r e c t o r s , Inc. ("JS N a t i o n w i d e " ) , a l l e g e d t o be a " c o r p o r a t i o n l o c a t e d i n Cullman County, Alabama," and (2) Walton C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, LLC, a l l e g e d t o be "a c o r p o r a t i o n headquartered complaint i n Kansas C i t y , M i s s o u r i . " The first amended c o n t a i n s i n t o t o the f o l l o w i n g f a c t u a l averments: "In e a r l y 2009, A p e l S t e e l was w o r k i n g as a s u b c o n t r a c t o r f o r s t e e l f a b r i c a t i o n and e r e c t i o n on a p r o j e c t a t a b a t t e r y m a n u f a c t u r i n g p l a n t under construction i n Springfield, Missouri. Defendant N o r t h s t a r B a t t e r y , the owner of the p l a n t b e i n g built, had contracted with Defendant Walton C o n s t r u c t i o n t o s e r v e as g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r f o r t h i s p r o j e c t , and A p e l S t e e l was a s u b c o n t r a c t o r t o Walton C o n s t r u c t i o n . Apel S t e e l had further s u b c o n t r a c t e d a p o r t i o n of i t s work t o Defendant JS Nationwide, whose r o l e i n the p r o j e c t was the e r e c t i o n of s t r u c t u r a l s t e e l a t the p l a n t , i n c l u d i n g 2 1110612 a mezzanine. On F e b r u a r y 4, 2009, d u r i n g the w e l d i n g of s t e e l on the mezzanine by a JS N a t i o n w i d e employee, s p a r k s from the w e l d i n g s t a r t e d a f i r e r e s u l t i n g i n the d e s t r u c t i o n of p r o p e r t y / e q u i p m e n t and a l s o c a u s i n g heat and smoke damage i n the a f f e c t e d a r e a of the p l a n t . "Walton C o n s t r u c t i o n l e a r n e d of the f i r e on the day that i t occurred, F e b r u a r y 4, 2 009, and i m m e d i a t e l y began a f u l l - s c a l e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Apel Steel first l e a r n e d of the fire from W a l t o n C o n s t r u c t i o n . Pursuant t o the c o n t r a c t between A p e l S t e e l and Walton C o n s t r u c t i o n , any l o s s e s and/or damages caused by any f i r e were t o be c o v e r e d by the p r o p e r t y i n s u r a n c e p r o v i d e d under the Prime C o n t r a c t between Walton C o n s t r u c t i o n and the owner of the project, Northstar Battery. I n s t e a d of s u b m i t t i n g a c l a i m on the owner's p r o p e r t y i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y , Walton C o n s t r u c t i o n i n s t e a d i n s i s t e d t h a t A p e l S t e e l pay all damages allegedly caused by its subcontractor, JS Nationwide. In fact, a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Walton C o n s t r u c t i o n t o l d Hank A p e l of A p e l S t e e l t h a t , ' N o r t h s t a r B a t t e r y i s a b i g customer, and we don't want t o u p s e t them by f i l i n g a c l a i m . ' Walton C o n s t r u c t i o n i n f o r m e d A p e l S t e e l t h a t i t would s u b t r a c t any and a l l c o s t s r e l a t e d t o the f i r e and any and a l l c o s t s r e l a t e d t o any d e l a y s t o the p r o j e c t caused by the f i r e from money due t o Apel Steel under i t s contract with Walton Construction. Because of the p r e s s u r e from W a l t o n Construction and the p o s s i b i l i t y of s u b s t a n t i a l backcharges, A p e l S t e e l ( f o r the t i m e b e i n g ) a g r e e d to absorb the c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the f i r e . Apel S t e e l t h e n asked JS N a t i o n w i d e t o submit a c l a i m t o i t s i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r f o r payment. However, JS N a t i o n w i d e ' s i n s u r e r r e f u s e d t o pay the c l a i m , and A p e l S t e e l was f o r c e d t o f i l e t h i s l a w s u i t a g a i n s t JS N a t i o n w i d e s e e k i n g t o r e c o v e r from JS N a t i o n w i d e the money t h a t was w i t h h e l d by Walton C o n s t r u c t i o n from A p e l S t e e l . JS N a t i o n w i d e has f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r summary judgment ( c u r r e n t l y p e n d i n g b e f o r e t h i s Court) c l a i m i n g t h a t A p e l S t e e l w a i v e d any c l a i m 3 1110612 a g a i n s t any s u b c o n t r a c t o r f o r damages caused by a f i r e on t h e N o r t h s t a r B a t t e r y p l a n t p r o j e c t . The w a i v e r was a l l e g e d l y made when, A p e l S t e e l e n t e r e d i n t o i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h Walton C o n s t r u c t i o n f o r t h e N o r t h s t a r B a t t e r y p r o j e c t pursuant t o a p r o v i s i o n i n the c o n t r a c t between Walton C o n s t r u c t i o n and A p e l Steel. The s u b c o n t r a c t between A p e l S t e e l and JS Nationwide incorporated the p r o v i s i o n s of Apel S t e e l ' s c o n t r a c t w i t h Walton. "The c o n t r a c t between A p e l S t e e l and W a l t o n c o n t a i n e d a p r o v i s i o n by which A p e l S t e e l a l l e g e d l y waived a l l r i g h t s a g a i n s t JS N a t i o n w i d e , as i t s s u b c o n t r a c t o r , ' f o r damages caused by f i r e o r o t h e r causes o f l o s s t o t h e e x t e n t covered by p r o p e r t y i n s u r a n c e p r o v i d e d under t h e Prime C o n t r a c t o r o t h e r p r o p e r t y i n s u r a n c e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e Work.' The Prime C o n t r a c t was t h e c o n t r a c t between N o r t h s t a r B a t t e r y and Walton C o n s t r u c t i o n . N o r t h s t a r B a t t e r y and Walton C o n s t r u c t i o n never s u b m i t t e d a c l a i m f o r the F e b r u a r y 4, 2 009 f i r e t o t h e i n s u r e r t h a t was supposed t o cover any c l a i m s f o r any p r o p e r t y damage at the Northstar B a t t e r y p r o j e c t . As d i s c u s s e d above, Walton i n s t e a d f o r c e d A p e l S t e e l t o pay a l l costs associated with the f i r e . " I t i s c l e a r from t h e f a c t s o f t h i s case t h a t JS N a t i o n w i d e E r e c t o r s , N o r t h s t a r B a t t e r y and/or Walton C o n s t r u c t i o n a r e r e s p o n s i b l e t o pay a l l damages and c o s t s r e l a t e d t o t h e f i r e t h a t took p l a c e on F e b r u a r y 4, 2 00 9 a t t h e N o r t h s t a r B a t t e r y p r o j e c t . I t i s a l s o c l e a r t h a t t h e one p a r t y who s h o u l d not bear t h e c o s t s and damages from t h a t f i r e i s A p e l S t e e l , t h e v e r y p a r t y who, t o date, has absorbed a l l of those c o s t s . " (Emphasis o m i t t e d . ) The counts i n the first N o r t h s t a r a l l e g e d (1) n e g l i g e n c e , 4 amended complaint against (2) u n j u s t enrichment, (3) 1110612 b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t , (4) s u p p r e s s i o n and m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , and (5) c o n s p i r a c y . The f i r s t amended c o m p l a i n t asserted that venue f o r t h e a c t i o n was p r o p e r i n Cullman County, because, i t s t a t e d , "a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t o f t h e e v e n t s and o m i s s i o n s g i v i n g r i s e t o [Apel's] c l a i m s o c c u r r e d i n Cullman County." N o r t h s t a r moved t o d i s m i s s t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t i t f o r l a c k of i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n . I t s p e c i f i c a l l y challenged the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t events o r o m i s s i o n s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e c l a i m s a g a i n s t i t o c c u r r e d i n Cullman County. Attached t o i t s motion was t h e a f f i d a v i t o f Tim C a l d w e l l , an employee o f N o r t h s t a r . The a f f i d a v i t stated that Northstar any contract with business (1) was "not a p a r t y t o [ A p e l ] " ; (2) had n e v e r i n Alabama"; (3) has no o f f i c e s "qualified o r employees i n Alabama; and (4) has no p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t s i n Alabama. trial court denied Northstar's t o do motion, and N o r t h s t a r The filed this petition. II. Discussion " ' [A] p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s t h e p r o p e r d e v i c e by which t o c h a l l e n g e t h e d e n i a l o f a motion to dismiss f o r lack o f i n personam jurisdiction.' Ex p a r t e Dill, Dill, Carr, S t o n b r a k e r & H u t c h i n a s . P.C.. 866 So. 2d 519, 525 (Ala. 2003) . 'A p e t i t i o n e r may be e n t i t l e d t o a w r i t of mandamus i n such a case upon a showing o f a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o an o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n 5 1110612 a g a i n s t i t . ' Ex p a r t e F i r s t Western Bank, 898 So. 2d 701, 704 ( A l a . 2004). ... "'This Court has explained the appropriate a n a l y s i s and t h e p a r t i e s ' respective burdens on a personaljurisdiction i s s u e as f o l l o w s . "The p l a i n t i f f has t h e burden o f p r o v i n g t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t has p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e defendant. Ex p a r t e C o v i n g t o n P i k e Dodge. I n c . . 904 So. 2d 226 ( A l a . 2 0 04)." J.C. Duke & Assocs. Gen. C o n t r a c t o r s . I n c . v. West, 991 So. 2d 194, 196 ( A l a . 2008). "'"'"In considering a Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n 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 c o m p l a i n t n o t c o n t r o v e r t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a f f i d a v i t s , Robinson v. G i a r m a r c o & B i l l , P.C.. 74 F.3d 253 ( 1 1 t h Cir. 1996), and Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network P r o d u c t i o n s , I n c . , 902 F.2d 829 (11th C i r . 1990) ...."' II I II II I "However, when t h e c o m p l a i n t f a i l s t o a l l e g e any j u r i s d i c t i o n a l b a s i s . 'there i s n o t h i n g i n t h e c o m p l a i n t ... t h a t t h e c o u r t must c o n s i d e r as t r u e and t h a t t h e r e f o r e p l a c e s [any1 burden on [the defendant! t o c o n t r o v e r t by a f f i d a v i t . ' [Ex p a r t e E x c e l s i o r F i n . , I n c . , 42 So. 3d 96, 103-04 ( A l a . 2010)] (defendant need n o t p r e s e n t evidence of 6 1110612 absence of j u r i s d i c t i o n when the c o m p l a i n t no j u r i s d i c t i o n a l averments)." Ex p a r t e McNeese T i t l e , LLC. ( q u o t i n g Ex (Ala. parte 2010) contains 82 So. 3d 670, 673-74 ( A l a . E x c e l s i o r F i n . . Inc.. (emphasis d e l e t e d ; 42 So. 3d emphasis added). words, the f a i l u r e of the complaint at In 103 other jurisdiction r e l i e v e s the o b j e c t i n g defendant of the burden of jurisdiction. 96, specifically to identify any f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r the a s s e r t i o n of p e r s o n a l evidence negating 2011) producing Ex p a r t e McNeese. 82 So. 3d 674. According c o n t a i n s no to Northstar, Apel's jurisdictional first averments. amended Petition, complaint a t 7. To counter t h a t c o n t e n t i o n , A p e l o f f e r s o n l y i t s statement t h a t venue is proper in Cullman j u r i s d i c t i o n a l averment. We County as a sufficient disagree with Apel. The f a c t u a l averments i n the f i r s t amended c o m p l a i n t are u t t e r l y d e v o i d of any a c t s a l l e g e d l y p e r f o r m e d i n , o r d i r e c t e d at, Alabama that could be construed N o r t h s t a r f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l purposes. the c o m p l a i n t i s not generic conclusion. the events and as a t t r i b u t a b l e to The venue statement i n such a f a c t u a l averment. but rather a The statement t h a t "a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of omissions giving rise 7 to [Apel's] claims 1110612 o c c u r r e d i n Cullman County" i s not s p e c i f i c a l l y to Northstar. attributable T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y noteworthy i n l i g h t of the f a c t t h a t the f i r s t amended c o m p l a i n t names t h r e e d e f e n d a n t s -- one of which (JS Nationwide) i s a l l e g e d t o be Cullman County." Northstar amended c o m p l a i n t thus f a c t u a l averments upon which j u r i s d i c t i o n c o n t a i n s no over could Because the be based, first the burden never N o r t h s t a r t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e of the absence of Ex p a r t e McNeese, 82 So. not "located i n analyze the 3d at 674.^ evidence shifted jurisdiction. C o n s e q u e n t l y , we Northstar did present Ex p a r t e McNeese, 82 So. 3d at III. Apel failed need in its c h a l l e n g e t o the t r i a l c o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e of j u r i s d i c t i o n it. to over 677. Conclusion to c a r r y i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l burden. The t r i a l court c l e a r l y erred, therefore, i n denying Northstar's motion t o d i s m i s s . We g r a n t the p e t i t i o n and d i r e c t the trial c o u r t t o d i s m i s s the c l a i m s a g a i n s t N o r t h s t a r . ^This same p l e a d i n g d e f a u l t p r e c l u d e s an o r d e r -- which A p e l seeks from t h i s Court i n the a l t e r n a t i v e -- a l l o w i n g i t to engage i n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d i s c o v e r y . See Ex p a r t e T r o n c a l l i C h r y s l e r Plymouth Dodge, Inc. , 876 So. 2d 459, 468 ( A l a . 2003) (a p l a i n t i f f i s not e n t i t l e d t o j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d i s c o v e r y where the c o m p l a i n t does not " ' a l l e g e f a c t s t h a t would support a c o l o r a b l e c l a i m of j u r i s d i c t i o n ' " ( q u o t i n g Schenck v. Walt D i s n e y Co., 742 F, Supp. 838, 840 n . l (S.D.N.Y. 1 9 9 0 ) ) ) . 8 1110612 PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Malone, C.J., and S t u a r t , B o l i n , P a r k e r , Shaw, Main, and Wise, J J . , c o n c u r . Murdock, J . , concurs i n t h e r e s u l t . 9 1110612 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e I So. (concurring i n the r e s u l t ) . wrote s p e c i a l l y 3d 670 LLC, 82 ( A l a . 2011) , t o e x p l a i n my u n d e r s t a n d i n g n e i t h e r Rule that 1 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., n o r any o t h e r contemplates a jurisdiction. requires i n Ex p a r t e McNeese T i t l e , a pleading as to personal That i s , t h e r e i s no r u l e o f p r o c e d u r e t h a t plaintiff jurisdiction requirement rule to i n a complaint affirmatively allege personal f i l e d i n an Alabama s t a t e court of general j u r i s d i c t i o n , i . e . , a c i r c u i t court. trial I d . at 677-82 (Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t ) . Instead, i t has always been and c o n t i n u e s t o be my understanding t h a t , i n order t o j o i n the i s s u e of personal jurisdiction, t h e defendant has t h e i n i t i a l burden of coming f o r w a r d w i t h a p r i m a f a c i e e v i d e n t i a r y showing t h a t t h e r e a r e not s u f f i c i e n t c o n t a c t s between t h e defendant and t h e S t a t e o f Alabama t o c o n f e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . Once t h a t has o c c u r r e d , t h e burden t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f , burden o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g who b e a r s personal j u r i s d i c t i o n . the ultimate The p l a i n t i f f can meet t h i s burden w i t h e i t h e r one o r a c o m b i n a t i o n following: (a) e v i d e n c e deemed p e r s u a s i v e by t h e t r i a l of the court w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e f a c t u a l i s s u e s as t o w h i c h t h e defendant 10 1110612 has p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e , o r (b) a l l e g a t i o n s of f a c t a c t u a l l y - made i n t h e c o m p l a i n t but l e f t unaddressed by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s evidentiary concurring submission. Id. at 678-79 (Murdock, J., i n t h e r e s u l t ) ( d i s c u s s i n g Ex p a r t e C o v i n g t o n P i k e Dodge. I n c . , 904 So. 2d 226 writing concurring believe the (Ala. 2004)). i n the r e s u l t different scheme As I e x p l a i n i n Ex p a r t e adopted my McNeese, i n that case r e i t e r a t e d i n t h e p r e s e n t case has t h e e f f e c t o f I and converting Rule 12(b)(2) from a r u l e r e q u i r i n g d i s m i s s a l i n t h e event o f an actual lack of personal jurisdiction, determined as a f a c t u a l m a t t e r by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , i n t o a r u l e more l i k e Rule 12(b)(6) t h a t measures t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e complaint, i . e . ,a rule complaint "fails jurisdiction. to allowing state a for dismissal claim" of where t h e in personam 82 So. 3d a t 677-78. Nonetheless, i n Ex p a r t e result ( i s s u i n g the w r i t dismiss the claims) McNeese and o r d e r i n g I concurred the t r i a l i n the court to because t h e defendants-movants i n t h a t case d i d i n f a c t submit e v i d e n t i a r y a f f i d a v i t s s u f f i c i e n t " t o provide a prima facie evidentiary personal j u r i s d i c t i o n by Alabama c o u r t s o v e r [them]." 11 showing of a lack of 82 So. 1110612 3d at 681 (Murdock, J., concurring i n the result) . q u e s t i o n i n t h a t case t h e r e f o r e became whether the had put on contrary evidence that rebutted the The plaintiff evidentiary s u b m i s s i o n of the defendants o r , f a i l i n g t h a t , whether t h e r e were a l l e g a t i o n s i n the p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t "(1) t h a t have not s p e c i f i c a l l y been r e b u t t e d by the e v i d e n t i a r y s u b m i s s i o n of the d e f e n d a n t s and, (2) t h a t therefore, j u r i s d i c t i o n over the defendants." a t 681-82 (Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n the r e s u l t ) . answer t o b o t h of the l a t t e r i n q u i r i e s was and and [were] of a n a t u r e s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r the e x e r c i s e of p e r s o n a l Id. [were] ' l e f t s t a n d i n g ' i n the I t h e r e f o r e agreed w i t h the r e s u l t r e a c h e d by o p i n i o n , i . e . , t h a t the c o m p l a i n t the f a i l u r e of the negative, the main due t o be d i s m i s s e d p l a i n t i f f t o c a r r y h i s burden of p r o o f t o the i s s u e of p e r s o n a l The was The for as jurisdiction. same i s t r u e i n the p r e s e n t case. The defendant d i d i n f a c t make a p r i m a f a c i e e v i d e n t i a r y showing of a l a c k of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n by Alabama c o u r t s o v e r i t . An affidavit submitted on i t s b e h a l f a v e r r e d t h a t N o r t h s t a r was a limited liability company e x i s t i n g under the laws o f M i s s o u r i w i t h i t s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s 12 the State of in Springfield, 1110612 M i s s o u r i ; that Northstar entered Construction Company, LLC, i n t o a c o n t r a c t w i t h Walton "to perform c e r t a i n work on a p r o j e c t l o c a t e d i n S p r i n g f i e l d , M i s s o u r i " ; t h a t N o r t h s t a r was not a p a r t y t o any c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e p l a i n t i f f , Apel Steel C o r p o r a t i o n ; t h a t N o r t h s t a r had never q u a l i f i e d t o do b u s i n e s s in Alabama Northstar and was not a resident does not have any o f f i c e s of this State; that i n Alabama n o r employ anyone i n t h i s S t a t e ; and t h a t N o r t h s t a r does not own, manage, o r l e a s e any p r o p e r t y i n Alabama. Although t h i s affidavit cannot be s a i d t o have as much "substance and b r e a d t h " as the somewhat more thorough a f f i d a v i t s i n Ex p a r t e McNeese, i t i s enough " t o p r o v i d e a prima f a c i e e v i d e n t i a r y showing o f a l a c k of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n by Alabama c o u r t s " over Northstar. Ex p a r t e McNeese, 82 So. 3d a t 681 (Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n the r e s u l t ) . A l s o s i m i l a r t o Ex p a r t e McNeese, t h e p l a i n t i f f here d i d n o t overcome t h i s prima f a c i e showing w i t h e i t h e r contrary evidence or a l l e g a t i o n s i n i t s complaint, by evidentiary submissions of the uncountered defendant, of facts s u f f i c i e n t t o provide a basis f o r the t r i a l court's exercise of McNeese, 635 personal jurisdiction.^ Just as i n Ex p a r t e ^ C i t i n g t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e DBI. 23 So. 3d ( A l a . 2009), t h e p l a i n t i f f argues t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t 13 1110612 t h e r e f o r e , I agree t h a t t h e complaint i n the present due t o be d i s m i s s e d f o r t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e p l a i n t i f f case i s t o carry- i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l burden. s u b m i t t e d by N o r t h s t a r does not i n c l u d e an averment t h a t N o r t h s t a r does not do b u s i n e s s by agent i n t h i s S t a t e . The plaintiff f u r t h e r argues t h a t N o r t h s t a r does i n f a c t do b u s i n e s s by agent i n Alabama, s t a t i n g i n i t s b r i e f t h a t the b a t t e r i e s i t m a n u f a c t u r e s a r e d i s t r i b u t e d t o and s o l d i n a l l 50 s t a t e s . There a r e two problems w i t h t h i s argument: (1) t h e p l a i n t i f f does not a l l e g e i n i t s c o m p l a i n t t h a t N o r t h s t a r does b u s i n e s s by agent i n Alabama and t h e r e f o r e t h e r e i s no a l l e g a t i o n t o t h i s e f f e c t t h a t can be s a i d t o be " l e f t s t a n d i n g " by N o r t h s t a r ' s a f f i d a v i t , and (2) Ex p a r t e DBI i s concerned with "specific" i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n not " g e n e r a l " i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n . See Ex p a r t e DBI, 23 So. 3d a t 652-55 (a s o - c a l l e d "stream-of-commerce" case r e l y i n g upon B u r g e r K i n g Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985), a " s p e c i f i c " j u r i s d i c t i o n case as d i s c u s s e d a t 471 U.S. a t 472-73 n. 15 and accompanying t e x t ) . Even i f t h e c o m p l a i n t i n t h e p r e s e n t case had a l l e g e d t h a t N o r t h s t a r s o l d b a t t e r i e s by agent i n Alabama, i t s c l a i m s i n t h i s case do not a r i s e out o f such s a l e s as would be n e c e s s a r y t o e s t a b l i s h " s p e c i f i c " i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n . See a l s o H e l i c o p t e r o s N a c i o n a l e s de Columbia, S.A. v. H a l l , 467 U.S. 408, 414 nn. 8¬ 9 and accompanying t e x t (1984) ( f u r t h e r e x p l a i n i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e between " s p e c i f i c " i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n and " g e n e r a l " i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n ) . 14