Ex parte Transportation Leasing Corp., and Aquilex Hydrochem, LLC
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.
Transportation Leasing Corp. ("TLC") and Aquilex Hydrochem, LLC, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to order the Perry Circuit Court to vacate its order denying TLC and Aquilex's motion to dismiss the action without prejudice to refile in Mississippi in accordance with the doctrine of forum non conveniens and to enter an order dismissing the action without prejudice. Ronald Weir, a resident of Mississippi, was severely injured in an automobile accident in Meridian, Mississippi. Weir filed a complaint in the Perry Circuit Court naming as defendants TLC, Aquilex, Floyd Hershey, and Gordon Booker and alleging negligence, wantonness, and negligent entrustment. In his complaint, Weir alleged that TLC was a corporate entity whose principal office is located in Illinois and that Booker, an Alabama resident, was operating a vehicle owned by TLC when the accident occurred. Weir alleged that Aquilex was a corporate entity whose principal office is located in Ohio and that Hershey, a resident of Ohio, was operating a vehicle owned by Aquilex when the accident occurred. Weir sued TLC, Aquilex, Booker, and Hershey. The petitioners argued that Mississippi was a more convenient forum because Booker was the only connection the action had to Alabama and the majority of witnesses and accident-related documents were in Mississippi. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court exceeded its discretion in denying petitioners' motion for a dismissal based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Court granted their petition and issued the writ.
Download PDF
REL:05/03/2013 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 of 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, 2012-2013 1120326 Ex p a r t e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n L e a s i n g Corp. and A q u i l e x Hydrochem, LLC PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Ronald Weir v. A q u i l e x Hydrochem, LLC, e t a l . ) (Perry C i r c u i t Court, BOLIN, CV-12-900043) Justice. Transportation Leasing Corp. ("TLC") and Aquilex Hydrochem, LLC ( " A q u i l e x " ) , p e t i t i o n t h i s C o u r t f o r a w r i t o f 1120326 mandamus o r d e r i n g t h e P e r r y C i r c u i t C o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s order d e n y i n g TLC a n d A q u i l e x ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n w i t h o u t prejudice to r e f i l e doctrine of dismissing forum the in Mississippi non action conveniens without i n accordance and to with the enter an We grant prejudice. order the p e t i t i o n and i s s u e t h e w r i t . Facts and P r o c e d u r a l History On J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , R o n a l d W e i r , a r e s i d e n t o f M i s s i s s i p p i , was s e v e r e l y i n j u r e d i n an a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t i n Meridian, Mississippi. On J u l y 18, 2012, W e i r f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n the P e r r y C i r c u i t C o u r t n a m i n g as d e f e n d a n t s TLC, A q u i l e x , Hershey, and Gordon Booker and wantonness, and n e g l i g e n t e n t r u s t m e n t . alleging negligence, In h i s complaint, a l l e g e d t h a t TLC was a c o r p o r a t e e n t i t y whose p r i n c i p a l is was located i n I l l i n o i s operating occurred. a Floyd Weir office a n d t h a t B o o k e r , an A l a b a m a r e s i d e n t , vehicle owned by TLC when the W e i r a l l e g e d t h a t A q u i l e x was a c o r p o r a t e accident entity whose p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e i s l o c a t e d i n O h i o a n d t h a t H e r s h e y , a resident o f O h i o , was o p e r a t i n g when t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d . a v e h i c l e owned b y Aquilex W e i r s u e d TLC, A q u i l e x , Booker, 2 1120326 and H e r s h e y . TLC a n d A q u i l e x have been s e r v e d w i t h n o t i c e o f t h e a c t i o n , b u t B o o k e r a n d H e r s h e y have n o t . On August 22, 2012, TLC and Aquilex (hereinafter c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e p e t i t i o n e r s " ) f i l e d to dismiss i n the t r i a l was a more c o n v e n i e n t the f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : c o u r t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t a motion Mississippi forum than t h e P e r r y C i r c u i t C o u r t f o r (1) W e i r i s a r e s i d e n t o f M i s s i s s i p p i ; (2) t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d i n M i s s i s s i p p i ; (3) t h e a c c i d e n t was investigated by the Meridian investigating police officer, Mississippi; Ohio; (5) A q u i l e x ' s Police principal office t o t h e a c c i d e n t , Dean H a r p e r officer), resides i n Mississippi; convenient action has p e t i t i o n e r s argue forum because t o Alabama Booker and i s located i n i s located i n I l l i n o i s ; a witness The (4) t h e Tommie C o k e r , i s a r e s i d e n t o f (6) TLC's p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e Ohio. Department; (7) (who a l s o i s a p o l i c e a n d (8) H e r s h e y r e s i d e s i n that Mississippi i s the only the m a j o r i t y is a more connection the of witnesses and a c c i d e n t - r e l a t e d documents a r e i n M i s s i s s i p p i . In support of t h e m o t i o n , t h e p e t i t i o n e r s a t t a c h e d an a f f i d a v i t f r o m O f f i c e r Coker, Officer who i n v e s t i g a t e d the accident. Coker stated that i t would 3 be In the affidavit, inconvenient and a 1120326 hardship f o r him petitioners to travel also attached t o Alabama an a f f i d a v i t to testify. from O f f i c e r Harper, who h a p p e n e d t o be an e y e w i t n e s s t o t h e a c c i d e n t . H a r p e r s t a t e d i n h i s a f f i d a v i t t h a t i t w o u l d be and a h a r d s h i p The Officer inconvenient f o r him t o t r a v e l t o Alabama t o t e s t i f y . The p e t i t i o n e r s a l s o f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t f r o m t h e f a t h e r o f a n o t h e r person i n j u r e d i n the accident regarding the residency of the i n j u r e d p e r s o n , b u t t h e a f f i d a v i t was n o t n o t a r i z e d . On O c t o b e r affidavits filed 30, 2012, W e i r filed a motion i n support of the motion to s t r i k e the to dismiss. That same d a y , W e i r a l s o f i l e d a r e s p o n s e t o t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , arguing that the p e t i t i o n e r s had f a i l e d t o demonstrate a l l t h e c l a i m s a r o s e o u t s i d e o f Alabama because claims was a n e g l i g e n t - e n t r u s t m e n t entrustment that occurred entrusted argument that Weir the majority negligent of witnesses documents a r e i n M i s s i s s i p p i because is from on a l s o argued t h a t the accident-related Booker one o f W e i r ' s i n P e r r y C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , when TLC i t s v e h i c l e t o Booker. petitioners' c l a i m based that Alabama reconstruction expert witnesses i s inaccurate Weir's a r e from Alabama. argued that n e i t h e r of the o f f i c e r s 4 and and accidentLast, in his affidavit Weir stated 1120326 d e f i n i t e l y that they would not attend a d e p o s i t i o n or a t r i a l i n A l a b a m a , o n l y t h a t i t w o u l d be On November inconvenient. 7, 2012, t h e t r i a l striking the a f f i d a v i t refusing to strike affidavits. That petitioners' motion that Officer same had entered n o t been Coker's and day, t h e t r i a l to dismiss. petitioners timely f i l e d court a petition order notarized Office court On December an but Harper's denied the 18, 2012, t h e f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. Standard o f Review A petition for a writ method f o r o b t a i n i n g r e v i e w dismiss parte o f mandamus i s the appropriate of a r u l i n g denying a motion t o b a s e d on t h e d o c t r i n e o f f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s . Ex K i a M o t o r s A m e r i c a , I n c . , 881 So. 2d 396 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . "Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y where 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 d u t y 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 a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e remedy, a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court. Ex p a r t e I n t e g o n C o r p . , 672 So. 2d 497, 499 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . 'A p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus i s a p r o p e r method f o r p r e s e n t i n g a venue c h a l l e n g e b a s e d on t h e d o c t r i n e o f f o r u m non conveniens.' I d . ( c i t a t i o n s omitted). We a p p l y t h e abuse-of-discretion standard when c o n s i d e r i n g a mandamus p e t i t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g a venue r u l i n g , a n d we w i l l not issue the w r i t unless the t r i a l court exercised i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n an a r b i t r a r y a n d c a p r i c i o u s manner. I d . " 5 1120326 Ex p a r t e B r o o k w o o d H e a l t h S e r v s . , I n c . , 781 So. 2d 954, 956-57 (Ala. 2000). Furthermore, our review facts t h a t were b e f o r e t h e t r i a l A u t o . , I n c . , 776 So. 2d 118, 120 court. i s limited t o those Ex p a r t e J i m Burke ( A l a . 2000). Discussion Section 6-5-430 provides: "Whenever, e i t h e r by common l a w o r t h e s t a t u t e s of another s t a t e or of the U n i t e d S t a t e s , a c l a i m , e i t h e r upon c o n t r a c t o r i n t o r t has a r i s e n o u t s i d e t h i s s t a t e a g a i n s t any p e r s o n o r c o r p o r a t i o n , s u c h c l a i m may be e n f o r c e a b l e i n t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e i n any c o u n t y i n w h i c h j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t can be l e g a l l y o b t a i n e d i n t h e same manner i n w h i c h j u r i s d i c t i o n c o u l d have b e e n o b t a i n e d i f t h e c l a i m had a r i s e n i n t h i s s t a t e ; p r o v i d e d , however, t h e of t h i s s t a t e s h a l l a p p l y the d o c t r i n e of courts f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r to a c c e p t o r d e c l i n e t o t a k e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f an a c t i o n b a s e d upon s u c h c l a i m o r i g i n a t i n g o u t s i d e this s t a t e ; and p r o v i d e d f u r t h e r t h a t , i f upon m o t i o n o f any d e f e n d a n t i t i s shown t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s a more appropriate forum o u t s i d e t h i s s t a t e , t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e l o c a t i o n where t h e a c t s g i v i n g r i s e t o the a c t i o n occurred, the convenience of the p a r t i e s and w i t n e s s e s , and t h e i n t e r e s t s o f j u s t i c e , t h e c o u r t must d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e . Such d i s m i s s a l may be c o n d i t i o n e d upon t h e d e f e n d a n t or defendants f i l i n g w i t h the c o u r t a consent ( i ) t o submit t o j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e i d e n t i f i e d forum, o r ( i i ) t o w a i v e any d e f e n s e b a s e d upon a s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s i f an a c t i o n on t h e same c a u s e o f a c t i o n i s commenced i n t h e i d e n t i f i e d f o r u m w i t h i n 60 d a y s of t h e d i s m i s s a l . " (Emphasis added.) 6 1120326 "The to p u r p o s e o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f f o r u m non 'prevent protect the waste of time, witnesses, e n e r g y , and money and litigants, and the u n n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e and i n c o n v e n i e n c e . ' " S i d i n g , I n c . , 882 So. 2d 307, New E n g l a n d Mut. 1995)). 312 Ins. a more against Ex p a r t e P e r f e c t i o n Co., 663 So. 2d 952, 956 c o u r t must d i s m i s s ' i f , upon m o t i o n o f a d e f e n d a n t , exists public a l s o to ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g Ex "Under § 6-5-430 a t r i a l prejudice there Life conveniens i s appropriate forum parte (Ala. without i t i s shown t h a t outside the state, t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e l o c a t i o n where t h e a c t s g i v i n g r i s e t o the action witnesses, occurred, and the DaimlerChrysler the convenience interest Corp., of 952 So. of 1138 (Ala. parties justice....'" 2d 2006) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e P r u d e n t i a l I n s . Co. 2d 1135, the 1082, Ex 1087 parte (Ala. o f A m e r i c a , 721 1998)). "The d o c t r i n e o f f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s r e q u i r e s a c o u r t to determine whether to accept or t o d e c l i n e j u r i s d i c t i o n of c l a i m s a r i s i n g o u t s i d e the s t a t e . Ex p a r t e I n t e g o n C o r p . , 672 So. 2d 497 ( A l a . 1995) . ' I n i t i a l l y , t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g d i s m i s s a l must show t h a t the c l a i m [ s ] arose o u t s i d e Alabama. Next, t h a t p a r t y must show t h a t an a l t e r n a t i v e f o r u m e x i s t s . ' 672 So. 2d a t 499; Ex p a r t e P r e s t o n Hood C h e v r o l e t , Inc., 638 So. 2d 842, 845 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ; Ex p a r t e E m p l o y e r s I n s . o f Wausau, 590 So. 2d 888, 893 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; Jerome A. Hoffman & S a n d r a C. G u i n , A l a b a m a Civil P r o c e d u r e § 2.148 (2d ed. 2000)('A p a r t y 7 and So. 1120326 s e e k i n g d i s m i s s a l u n d e r § 6-5-430 must e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e c l a i m t o be d i s m i s s e d a r o s e e l s e w h e r e t h a n i n Alabama.' ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) ) . "Thus, t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s c o m p e l l e d t o d i s m i s s an a c t i o n w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e i f ... i t i s shown t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s a more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r u m o u t s i d e t h e state " Ex p a r t e K i a M o t o r s , 881 So. 2d a t 399-400. P u r s u a n t t o § 6-5-430, a d e f e n d a n t seeking dismissal an a c t i o n b a s e d on t h e d o c t r i n e o f f o r u m non of c o n v e n i e n s must show t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s a r o s e o u t s i d e o f A l a b a m a and t h a t a more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r u m e x i s t s b a s e d on t h e l o c a t i o n o f the acts giving rise t o the a c t i o n , the convenience of p a r t i e s and w i t n e s s e s , and t h e i n t e r e s t s o f j u s t i c e . v. B e l l H e l i c o p t e r T e x t r o n , I n c . , 916 So. 2d 600 We a the Malsch ( A l a . 2005) . n o t e t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s have a g r e e d t o a s t i p u l a t i o n dismissal without prejudice that a l l o w s Weir to file of an a c t i o n i n M i s s i s s i p p i and t h a t t h e y have a l s o a g r e e d t o w a i v e any d e f e n s e b a s e d on t h e s t a t u t e o f In Ex parte Kia Motors, F l o r i d a were r i d i n g i n a 1998 were involved Florida. The in a Sephia supra, p a s t u r e , where i t c a u g h t several residents of K i a S e p h i a a u t o m o b i l e when t h e y high-speed left limitations. the fire crash with roadway, and b u r n e d . 8 another came to car rest O n l y one in in a occupant 1120326 of the automobile estates of the Circuit Court Coporation decedents against (both Alabama) and Houston County, purchased. survived. of filed Kia the are and plaintiffs to dismiss the majority Florida. claim the and Kia of were of the automobile had justice One of the arose. This Uniform Commercial dismiss based on breach-of-warranty Accordingly, we in and required Court Code, been against claims They where t h e concluded for the arises of the that the be under purposes where to heard in breach-of-warranty of non the h e l d t h a t a l l the p l a i n t i f f s ' 9 related case that forum and argued the forum in Florida documents that doctrine claim occurred Florida. i s s u e s was the in products-liability, breach-of-warranty accident witnesses located of located and w a n t o n n e s s c l a i m s and Motors outside dealership the the Houston t h e A l a b a m a a c t i o n b a s e d on t h e d o c t r i n e o f conveniens because the interests America of K i a and t h e d e a l e r s h i p f i l e d a m o t i o n non accident in asserted products-liability a g a i n s t the d e a l e r s h i p . action headquartered where breach-of-warranty, negligence, Kia an automobile Alabama, The representatives Motors which against The a Alabama's motion conveniens, injury to a occurred. claims arose i n 1120326 Florida and that t h e Alabama action should be dismissed without prejudice. W e i r does n o t d i s p u t e t h a t h i s n e g l i g e n c e a n d w a n t o n n e s s claims arose i n Mississippi. negligent-entrustment However, W e i r a r g u e s t h a t h i s c l a i m arose i n P e r r y County, Alabama, b e c a u s e TLC e n t r u s t e d i t s v e h i c l e t o B o o k e r i n P e r r y C o u n t y . Weir argues claim that focuses the foundation of a on t h e a c t o f e n t r u s t m e n t negligent-entrustment and t h e e n t r u s t e e ' s incompetence and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e a c c i d e n t involving the entrustee negligent-entrustment is not necessarily where the c l a i m arose. We r e c o g n i z e t h a t t o s u c c e e d on a negligent-entrustment c l a i m , t h e p l a i n t i f f must p r o v e t h a t t h e e n t r u s t o r knew o r h a d reason Harry's t o know of the entrustee's B a r , 574 So. 2d 775 incompetence. ( A l a . 1990) . e n t r u s t o r may be g u i l t y o f n e g l i g e n t e n t r u s t m e n t Liao Although v. an of a v e h i c l e t o an i n c o m p e t e n t d r i v e r , he o r she may n o t be h e l d l i a b l e f o r such n e g l i g e n c e u n l e s s t h e i n j u r y i s p r o x i m a t e l y caused by t h e incompetence of the e n t r u s t e e . 2d 129 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) . K e l l e r v . K i e d i n g e r , 389 So. " [ O ] n e who e n t r u s t s an a u t o m o b i l e t o an i n c o m p e t e n t d r i v e r , i n c o m p e t e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w o r i n f a c t , 10 1120326 i s g u i l t y of n e g l i g e n t liability for proximately such entrustment 449 So. 2d 244, Jones E x p r e s s , Inc. the 2010), a parents action against that d r i v e r had upon an Jackson, motorist trucking supervised the 86 brought company injury entrustee." ( A l a . C i v . App. i n w h i c h t h e m o t o r i s t was the r e t a i n e d , and of v. 245 t h e t r u c k i n g company and i n the a c c i d e n t alleged depends entrustor's r e s u l t i n g from the incompetency of the Bonds v. B u s l e r , In e n t r u s t m e n t ; however, the So. a 3d 1984). 298 wrongful-death truck driver involved killed. had The parents negligently t r u c k d r i v e r and hired, t h a t the n e g l i g e n t l y c o l l i d e d w i t h the m o t o r i s t ' s favor We of the was company was d r i v e r on However, t h e j u r y f o u n d i n the inconsistent with negligent explained retention, a truck in hiring that implicit training, and consequence of the parents' negligence a finding that and i n the 11 supervising tort supervision employee's The hiring, claim. h e l d t h a t t h e j u r y ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e t r u c k d r i v e r was negligent We supervision claim. truck car. j u r y f o u n d i n f a v o r o f t h e p a r e n t s on t h e i r n e g l i g e n t r e t e n t i o n , and (Ala. the not trucking the driver. of n e g l i g e n t hiring, i s the concept t h a t , incompetence, the as employee 1120326 committed some s o r t o f a c t , w r o n g d o i n g , the p l a i n t i f f ' s or t o r t that caused injury. " I t has b e e n s t a t e d g e n e r a l l y t h a t , i n o r d e r f o r an e m p l o y e r t o be l i a b l e f o r t h e n e g l i g e n t h i r i n g , training, retention, and supervision of i t s e m p l o y e e , t h e p l a i n t i f f must a l s o p r o v e ' w r o n g f u l c o n d u c t ' on t h e p a r t o f t h e e m p l o y e e . University Fed. C r e d i t U n i o n v. G r a y s o n , 878 So. 2d 280, 291 (Ala. 2003)('[A] party alleging negligent s u p e r v i s i o n and h i r i n g must p r o v e t h e u n d e r l y i n g wrongful conduct of the defendant's a g e n t s . ' ) ; V o y a g e r I n s . Cos. v. W h i t s o n , 867 So. 2d 1065, 1073 (Ala. 2003)('A p a r t y a l l e g i n g n e g l i g e n t o r wanton supervision and hiring must also prove the u n d e r l y i n g w r o n g f u l conduct of employees.'); see a l s o S t e v e n s o n v. P r e c i s i o n S t a n d a r d , I n c . , 762 So. 2d 820 ( A l a . 1999) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a j u r y v e r d i c t a g a i n s t an e m p l o y e r b a s e d on n e g l i g e n t t r a i n i n g and s u p e r v i s i o n o f a s u p e r v i s o r who a l l e g e d l y s e x u a l l y h a r a s s e d a f e l l o w e m p l o y e e c o u l d n o t s t a n d where t h e j u r y a l s o e x o n e r a t e d t h e s u p e r v i s o r ) ; S m i t h v. B o y d B r o s . T r a n s p . , I n c . , 406 F.Supp.2d 1238, 1248 (M.D. Ala. 2005) ('Under A l a b a m a law, the f i n d i n g of u n d e r l y i n g t o r t i o u s conduct i s a p r e c o n d i t i o n to i n v o k i n g s u c c e s s f u l l y l i a b i l i t y f o r the n e g l i g e n t or w a n t o n t r a i n i n g and s u p e r v i s i o n o f an e m p l o y e e . ' ) ; and T h r a s h e r v. I v a n L e o n a r d C h e v r o l e t , I n c . , 195 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1320 (N.D. A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ( ' I n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h a c l a i m a g a i n s t an e m p l o y e r f o r n e g l i g e n t supervision, training, and/or retention, the plaintiff must establish that the allegedly i n c o m p e t e n t e m p l o y e e c o m m i t t e d ... [a] t o r t . ' ) . " 86 So. 3d a t We 304. recognize entrustment, that the p l a i n t i f f in order to prove negligent must p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e e n t r u s t m e n t was n e g l i g e n t , e.g., t h a t an u n r e a s o n a b l e 12 1120326 r i s k o f harm was c r e a t e d by p l a c i n g c o n t r o l o f a m o t o r v e h i c l e i n t h e hands o f an i n c o m p e t e n t d r i v e r . there will likely be n e g l i g e n t entrustment, entrustor injury may is not be held liable caused until In the p r e s e n t negligence, claims occurred the the negligent case, do act of i s c o m m i t t e d by alleged negligence i s an and We the the that negligent-entrustment now t u r n to the a l t e r n a t i v e forum. The question accident W e i r r e s i d e s i n M i s s i s s i p p i , and ( t h e o n l y d e f e n d a n t s who not incompetence the the automobile a c c i d e n t g i v i n g r i s e wantonness, occurred i n M i s s i s s i p p i . action) unless in Mississippi. in Mississippi. whether M i s s i s s i p p i petitioners However, an for negligence by alleged n e g l i g e n t e n t r u s t m e n t of a motor v e h i c l e caused the a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d the the i n Alabama. e n t r u s t e e . H e r e , t h e a c c i d e n t and any to of case, t h e r e f o r e , f o r the purposes of the d o c t r i n e of f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s , arise presented which occured proximately e n t r u s t e e , and, does n o t evidence In the p r e s e n t have b e e n s e r v e d the i n the r e s i d e i n e i t h e r Alabama or M i s s i s s i p p i . The a c c i d e n t was i n v e s t i g a t e d by t h e M e r i d i a n , M i s s i s s i p p i , P o l i c e Department. The Mississippi. i n v e s t i g a t i n g p o l i c e o f f i c e r i s a r e s i d e n t of The investigating officer 13 and at least one 1120326 eyewitness hardship have a s s e r t e d t h a t i t w o u l d be for them to travel to Alabama i n c o n v e n i e n t and to testify. a Weir a s s e r t s t h a t n e i t h e r of the a f f i d a v i t s d e f i n i t i v e l y s t a t e t h a t the witness would not t e s t i f y i n Alabama. 486 able to would I n Ex p a r t e B e n - A c a d i a , have refused L t d . , 566 the l o c a t i o n of the a c t s g i v i n g r i s e to convenience of the parties i n t e r e s t s of j u s t i c e , the t r i a l a or So. to 2d ( A l a . 1990), t h i s Court s t a t e d t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n to t a k i n g i n t o account the be d i s m i s s a l of f o r u m non the conveniens and witnesses, action, and the c o u r t , i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a c t i o n on the basis s h o u l d be g r a n t e d , of the should doctrine of consider "the r e l a t i v e ease of access t o sources of p r o o f , the l o c a t i o n of the evidence, the a v a i l a b i l i t y of compulsory p r o c e s s f o r the attendance of u n w i l l i n g w i t n e s s e s , the c o s t of o b t a i n i n g the attendance of w i l l i n g w i t n e s s e s , the p o s s i b i l i t y of a view of the premises, i f a v i e w w o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e a c t i o n , and any o t h e r m a t t e r i n o r d e r t o a s s e s s t h e d e g r e e o f a c t u a l d i f f i c u l t y and h a r d s h i p t h a t w o u l d r e s u l t t o the defendant i n l i t i g a t i n g the case i n t h e f o r u m c h o s e n by t h e p l a i n t i f f . " 566 So. witness 2d a t 88. Nothing s t a t e t h a t he or i n our she caselaw refuses to t e s t i f y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t e s t i f y i n g i n the i n i t i a l a h a r d s h i p and w o u l d be inconvenient. p u r p o s e o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f f o r u m non 14 provides that i n s t e a d of forum w i l l A f t e r a l l , the conveniens the i s to present entire relieve 1120326 a defendant o f t h e undue b u r d e n o f l i t i g a t i n g i n an inconvenient forum. Weir a l s o argues call to Alabama testify and t h a t t h e e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s he e x p e c t s regarding t h a t those a c c i d e n t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n are witnesses having to t r a v e l to M i s s i s s i p p i . DaimlerChrysler Corp., her business to travel be to from inconvenienced by i n d i c a t e d i n Ex p a r t e expert The to will As we supra, t r a v e l to t e s t i f y at t r i a l s . or especially witnesses regularly e x p e r t makes i t p a r t o f h i s the site of litigation both w i t h i n and o u t s i d e o f t h i s S t a t e , and t h e t r a v e l d i s t a n c e f r o m Birmingham to the proposed venue i n Meridian, Mississippi, a l t h o u g h g r e a t e r t h a n t h e d i s t a n c e t o P e r r y C o u n t y , does not a p p e a r t o be u n d u l y g r e a t e r f o r someone f o r whom t r a v e l t o t h e s i t e of l i t i g a t i o n cannot i s a customary p a r t of t h e i r b u s i n e s s . say t h a t the p h y s i c a l presence Alabama (assuming that available in Mississippi) investigating officer and they would outweighs the of those not witnesses make in themselves the inconvenience eyewitnesses We in this of the case of t r a v e l i n g t o Alabama. The conveniens interests-of-justice analysis a l s o weighs 15 prong of i n f a v o r of the forum non d i s m i s s i n g the 1120326 a c t i o n so t h a t i t c a n be r e f i l e d i n M i s s i s s i p p i . First Family Financial (Ala. 1998), t h i s Court Services, I n Ex p a r t e I n c . , 718 So. 2d 658, 661 noted: "'"Important c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r e t h e r e l a t i v e ease o f access t o sources of proof; availability of compulsory p r o c e s s f o r a t t e n d a n c e o f u n w i l l i n g , and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; p o s s i b i l i t y of view of premises, i f view w o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e a c t i o n ; a n d a l l o t h e r p r a c t i c a l p r o b l e m s t h a t make t r i a l o f a c a s e e a s y , expeditious and i n e x p e n s i v e . T h e r e may a l s o be q u e s t i o n s as t o t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f a j u d g m e n t i f one is obtained. The court will weigh relative advantages and o b s t a c l e s t o f a i r t r i a l . I t i s o f t e n s a i d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f may n o t , b y c h o i c e o f an i n c o n v e n i e n t f o r u m , 'vex,' ' h a r a s s , ' o r ' o p p r e s s ' t h e d e f e n d a n t b y i n f l i c t i n g upon h i m e x p e n s e o r t r o u b l e n o t n e c e s s a r y t o h i s own r i g h t t o p u r s u e h i s remedy. B u t u n l e s s t h e b a l a n c e i s s t r o n g l y i n f a v o r of t h e defendant, t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c h o i c e o f forum s h o u l d r a r e l y be d i s t u r b e d . " ' " F a c t o r s o f p u b l i c i n t e r e s t a l s o have p l a c e i n applying the doctrine. Administrative d i f f i c u l t i e s f o l l o w f o r c o u r t s when l i t i g a t i o n i s p i l e d up i n congested centers i n s t e a d of being handled at i t s origin. J u r y d u t y i s a b u r d e n t h a t o u g h t n o t t o be i m p o s e d upon t h e p e o p l e o f a community w h i c h h a s no r e l a t i o n to the l i t i g a t i o n . In cases which touch t h e a f f a i r s o f many p e r s o n s , there i s reason f o r h o l d i n g t h e t r i a l i n t h e i r v i e w and r e a c h r a t h e r t h a n i n r e m o t e p a r t s o f t h e c o u n t r y where t h e y c a n l e a r n o f i t by r e p o r t o n l y . There i s a l o c a l i n t e r e s t i n having l o c a l i z e d controversies decided a t home. T h e r e i s an a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s , too, i n h a v i n g t h e t r i a l o f a d i v e r s i t y case i n a forum t h a t i s a t home w i t h t h e s t a t e l a w t h a t must g o v e r n t h e c a s e , r a t h e r t h a n h a v i n g a c o u r t i n some o t h e r f o r u m 16 1120326 untangle problems i n c o n f l i c t foreign to i t s e l f . " ' " (Quoting Ex parte Gauntt, 1998)(Maddox, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) , v. Gilbert, First 330 Family conveniens U.S. 501, Financial under § laws, and So. 677 of 2d in 204, law 221 (Ala. q u o t i n g i n t u r n G u l f O i l Corp. 508-09 applied 6-3-21.1, (1947).) the Ala. Though Ex p a r t e doctrine Code of 1975, forum the non same p r i n c i p l e s apply here. " ' [ I ] n a n a l y z i n g the i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e prong of § 6-3-21.1, t h i s C o u r t f o c u s e s on w h e t h e r t h e " n e x u s " o r " c o n n e c t i o n " b e t w e e n t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n and t h e o r i g i n a l f o r u m i s s t r o n g enough t o w a r r a n t b u r d e n i n g the p l a i n t i f f ' s forum w i t h the a c t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e F i r s t T e n n e s s e e Bank N a t ' l A s s ' n , 994 So. 2d 906, 911 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) . ... Further, i n examining whether i t i s the i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e t o t r a n s f e r a c a s e , we c o n s i d e r 'the b u r d e n of p i l i n g court s e r v i c e s and r e s o u r c e s upon t h e p e o p l e o f a c o u n t y t h a t i s n o t a f f e c t e d by t h e c a s e and ... the i n t e r e s t o f t h e p e o p l e o f a c o u n t y t o have a c a s e that a r i s e s i n t h e i r county t r i e d c l o s e to p u b l i c v i e w i n t h e i r c o u n t y . Ex p a r t e S m i t h s W a t e r & Sewer A u t h . , 982 So. 2d 484, 490 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . " Ex p a r t e I n d i a n a M i l l s 2008). Mfg., I n c . , 10 So. 3d 536, 540 (Ala. The i n t e r e s t s o f j u s t i c e w e i g h i n f a v o r o f M i s s i s s i p p i as t h e venue f o r t h i s Based on the case. foregoing, we hold that the trial court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying the p e t i t i o n e r s ' motion f o r a dismissal based on the d o c t r i n e 17 of forum non conveniens. 1120326 A c c o r d i n g l y , we g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus a n d d i r e c t the t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r an o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e c a s e without prejudice. providing "A d i s m i s s a l p u r s u a n t t o § 6-5-430 w i t h o u t f o r the right of a p l a i n t i f f to refile would be c o n t r a r y t o t h e i n t e r e s t s o f j u s t i c e , one o f t h e f a c t o r s t o be considered Motors, i n o r d e r i n g such 881 So. 2d at a 401. dismissal." As Ex p a r t e K i a previously noted, the p e t i t i o n e r s have c o n s e n t e d t o j u r i s d i c t i o n i n M i s s i s s i p p i a n d have w a i v e d t h e s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s d e f e n s e , o b v i a t i n g t h e need forjudicial that action to protect Weir from assertion of defense. PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Stuart, P a r k e r , Shaw, W i s e , a n d B r y a n , Murdock, J . , c o n c u r s specially. Moore, C . J . , d i s s e n t s . 18 J J . , concur. 1120326 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e ( c o n c u r r i n g I concur i n t h e main e x p l a i n t h a t my v o t e case (1) t o place specially). opinion. I write reflects a hesitation i nthis as much emphasis location o f one o f two o t h e r involved i n the accident particular as t h e p l a i n t i f f the l o c a t i o n of the p l a i n t i f f ' s the separately to drivers experts who u r g e s on and (2) t h e allegedly were a n d who a r e named as d e f e n d a n t s i n complaint. As t o the experts, I first t h e r e t o be o n l y one e x p e r t n o t e t h a t we s h o u l d at issue. (The o t h e r consider individual t o whom t h e p l a i n t i f f a l l u d e s i s an a s s i s t a n t e m p l o y e d b y t h e same f i r m t h a t e m p l o y s t h e s i n g l e e x p e r t . ) main o p i n i o n s u g g e s t s , of h i s business within Birmingham while t h i s p a r t i c u l a r e x p e r t makes i t a p a r t to travel and w i t h o u t this than to the site State, t o the proposed greater Moreover, as t h e of l i t i g a t i o n and t h e t r a v e l venue the distance i n Meridian, t o Perry distance both from Mississippi, County, does n o t a p p e a r t o be u n d u l y s o . Further s t i l l , the p l a i n t i f f , a M i s s i s s i p p i r e s i d e n t who s u f f e r e d i n j u r i e s i n an a c c i d e n t t h a t o c c u r r e d i n M i s s i s s i p p i , made a c h o i c e i n t h i s c a s e t o h i r e an A l a b a m a - b a s e d a c c i d e n t - 19 1120326 reconstruction suggests served expert. Nothing t h a t the p l a i n t i f f by hiring Mississippi. an i n the materials before c o u l d n o t have b e e n e q u a l l y w e l l accident-reconstruction expert Without us more, I am r e l u c t a n t to based i n place much w e i g h t on a c o n n e c t i o n o f t h i s n a t u r e v o l u n t a r i l y c r e a t e d w i t h A l a b a m a by an o u t - o f - s t a t e p l a i n t i f f state accident, circumstances There at least presented i s only within i n r e g a r d t o an the in this particular one other likely resides i n A l a b a m a , Gordon B o o k e r . one the of other accordingly context drivers i s named as one who I n any e v e n t , the in this does evidence), evidence this not Even i f we may there before challenge i s no us as this allegation i t allegation i n the Mississippi. allegation (the p e t i t i o n e r s ' with contrary complaint of r e s i d e n c e S t a t e or the p r o x i m i t y of h i s r e s i d e n c e 20 and not y e t been accept t h i s to Booker's place as o p p o s e d t o M e r i d i a n , although be a l l e g e s o n l y t h a t Booker as t r u e f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e p r e s e n t d i s p u t e motion allegedly accident defendants, the complaint i s an A l a b a m a r e s i d e n t . other Booker i s a l l e g e d t o a p p e a r s f r o m t h e m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e us t h a t he has served. the case. witness involved of of out-of- to Perry and no within County 1120326 MOORE, C h i e f J u s t i c e (dissenting). I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t b e c a u s e I do n o t b e l i e v e a w r i t o f mandamus i s t h e p r o p e r means b y w h i c h venue. to The d o c t r i n e o f f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s was n o t a v a i l a b l e Alabama c o u r t s u n t i l Co., t o f o r c e a change o f 1987. See Ex p a r t e F o r d M o t o r 772 So. 2d 437, 440 (2000) (citing Ex p a r t e Credit Illinois C e n t . G u l f R.R., 537 So. 2d 899 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ) . Even d u r i n g t h e f i r s t decade after the l e g i s l a t u r e amended § 6-5-430, A l a . Code 1975, t o r e f e r e n c e t h e d o c t r i n e o f f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s , t h i s Court t y p i c a l l y upheld a t r i a l court's d e c i s i o n not t o dismiss an action conveniens. Joiners parte on the basis of the doctrine of forum non See, e . g . , Ex p a r t e U n i t e d Bhd. o f C a r p e n t e r s & o f A m e r i c a , AFL-CIO, 688 So. 2d 246 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ; Ex Preston Hood Chevrolet, I n c . , 638 So. 2d 842 (Ala. 1 9 9 4 ) ; Ex p a r t e E m p l o y e r s I n s . o f Wausau, 590 So. 2d 888 ( A l a . 1991); Ex p a r t e Allied-Signal, I n c . , 561 So. 2d 1062 (Ala. 1 9 9 0 ) ; Ex p a r t e A u t o - O w n e r s I n s . Co., 548 So. 2d 1029 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; a n d Ex p a r t e Illinois I believe issuing a writ C e n t . G u l f R.R., supra. o f mandamus i n t h i s case would t a k e t h i s C o u r t one s t e p f u r t h e r f r o m t h e p u r p o s e a n d m e a n i n g of mandamus and g i v e the impression 21 that mandamus i s an 1120326 ordinary, r a t h e r t h a n an e x t r a o r d i n a r y , or, a t l e a s t , i t ought n o t t o be. I . Mandamus i s an E x t r a o r d i n a r y As the majority opinion parte Brookwood H e a l t h (Ala. 2000)) (emphasis Servs., o u t : "'Mandamus So. 3d a t is a ( q u o t i n g Ex I n c . , 781 So. 2d 954, 956-57 added). (2013) d e f i n e s Writ points 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 . ' " Dictionary remedy. I t i s n o t -¬ I agree. "drastic" The Random as " e x t r e m e l y House severe or e x t e n s i v e . " C o l l i n s E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y ( 1 0 t h e d . 2009) d e f i n e s " d r a s t i c " as " e x t r e m e o r f o r c e f u l . " These d e f i n i t i o n s u s e t h e words " e x t r e m e l y " o r " e x t r e m e , " w h i c h r e f e r t o "a c h a r a c t e r o r kind the high f a r t h e s t removed f r o m t h e o r d i n a r y or average," o r ,i n a l t e r n a t i v e , t o t h e "utmost o r h i g h e s t degree." added). The The Random House term degree, or a very Dictionary "extraordinary" refers (2013) (emphasis to that which i s " b e y o n d what i s u s u a l , o r d i n a r y , r e g u l a r , o r e s t a b l i s h e d . " I d . The t e r m c a n mean " e x c e p t i o n a l i n c h a r a c t e r , [or] d e g r e e . " Id. Accordingly, extraordinary writ option, n o t as a this o f mandamus routine as 22 extent, C o u r t o u g h t t o t r e a t an an substitute r e v i e w and s u p e r v i s i o n . amount, extreme or d r a s t i c f o r regular judicial 1120326 II. Standard o f Review The standard of review f o r mandamus r e l i e f i s as f o l l o w s : "'Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y where 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 d u t y 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 a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e remedy, a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court.'" Ex p a r t e K i a Motors America, Inc., 2003)(quoting 956) Ex p a r t e B r o o k w o o d H e a l t h (emphasis added). balancing becomes 881 So. 2d 396, 399 ( A l a . only 781 So. 2d a t The mandamus s t a n d a r d t e s t of various an o p t i o n Servs., i s n o t a mere f a c t o r s . Mandamus i s a remedy t h a t when a party h a s met a threshold c o n s i s t i n g o f f o u r f a c t o r s : "The b u r d e n i s on t h e p e t i t i o n e r who seeks required parte But a writ f o r issuance Patterson, even nothing then t o show of the w r i t that has been each element satisfied." Ex 853 So. 2d 260, 263 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . we n e e d n o t g r a n t i n the standard the w r i t , The o f mandamus of review i t . I t i s discretionary: requires t h i s Court t o issue even i f a p a r t y has s a t i s f i e d a l l f o u r f a c t o r s . standard accordingly, couched of review i n strong f o r mandamus words b e f i t t i n g relief i s , a remedy so d r a s t i c a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y : t h e l e g a l r i g h t must be c l e a r , t h e 23 1120326 respondent's duty to perform the refused a c t must be i m p e r a t i v e , a n d o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d i e s must be l a c k i n g . To be clear i s t o be p l a i n or evident; t o be i m p e r a t i v e i s t o be c o m p u l s o r y o r o b l i g a t o r y ; t o be l a c k i n g i s t o be n o n e x i s t e n t . See The Random House Dictionary. judicial These D i c t i o n a r y ; see a l s o a r e s t r o n g words Collins reserved English f o r an e x t r e m e remedy. As t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n p o i n t s o u t , a s u b s i d i a r y s t a n d a r d of review f o r mandamus r e l i e f i s whether a trial judge, i n a c t i n g o r r e f u s i n g t o a c t , has exceeded h i s o r h e r d i s c r e t i o n . So. 399). 3d a t ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e K i a M o t o r s , Whether t o d i s m i s s 881 So. 2d a t an a c t i o n b a s e d on t h e d o c t r i n e o f f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s i s a f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t i s w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l not d i s t u r b h i s or her r u l i n g exceeded h i s or her d i s c r e t i o n . judge, unless 1 and t h i s Court the t r i a l ought judge has Ex p a r t e K i a M o t o r s , 881 So. T h e r e was a t i m e when t r i a l c o u r t s were e n t i t l e d t o so much d i s c r e t i o n as t o t h e i r f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s t h a t a h i g h e r c o u r t w o u l d n o t i s s u e a w r i t o f mandamus e v e n i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o v i d e d f a l s e r e a s o n s f o r why a w r i t o f mandamus s h o u l d n o t i s s u e . As S i r W i l l i a m B l a c k s t o n e e x p l a i n s : " [ I ] f [the t r i a l j u d g e ] , a t t h e f i r s t , r e t u r n s a s u f f i c i e n t c a u s e , a l t h o u g h i t s h o u l d be f a l s e i n f a c t , t h e c o u r t o f t h e k i n g ' s b e n c h w i l l n o t t r y t h e t r u t h o f t h e f a c t upon a f f i d a v i t s ; b u t w i l l f o r t h e p r e s e n t b e l i e v e h i m , a n d p r o c e e d no f a r t h e r on t h e mandamus." 3 S i r W i l l i a m B l a c k s t o n e , C o m m e n t a r i e s on t h e 1 24 1120326 2d a t 399. T h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t "'unless the balance i s s t r o n g l y i n favor of the defendant, the p l a i n t i f f ' s choice of f o r u m s h o u l d r a r e l y be d i s t u r b e d . ' " Ex p a r t e A u t o - O w n e r s I n s . Co., v. 548 So. 2d 1029, Gilbert, 1032 ( A l a . 1989) ( q u o t i n g G u l f O i l C o r p . 330 U.S. 5 0 1 , 508 (1947)) (emphasis omitted; emphasis added). In the context of a challenge t o venue, a trial judge exceeds h i s or h e r d i s c r e t i o n i f the judge a c t s a r b i t r a r i l y or capriciously. Therefore, trial of Ex parte a party K i a Motors, seeking a writ j u d g e t o e n t e r an o r d e r the doctrine 881 So. o f mandamus 2d a t 399. to direct a d i s m i s s i n g a c a s e on t h e b a s i s o f f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s must show n o t o n l y t h a t i t h a s met a l l f o u r f a c t o r s o f t h e mandamus s t a n d a r d , b u t a l s o t h a t t h e t r i a l judge a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y o r c a p r i c i o u s l y by refusing to dismiss L e a s i n g Corp. the case. I d . Even i f Transportation ("TLC") a n d A q u i l e x Hydrochem, LLC ( " A q u i l e x " ) , have s a t i s f i e d t h e s e f o u r f a c t o r s , t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d n o t i s s u e Laws o f E n g l a n d I n s u c h a s i t u a t i o n , t h e remedy w o u l d n o t have b e e n a w r i t o f mandamus t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e , b u t "an a c t i o n a g a i n s t him f o r f a l s e r e t u r n . " I d . Only i f t h a t s u b s e q u e n t a c t i o n were s u c c e s s f u l w o u l d t h e t r i a l c o u r t be s u b j e c t t o t h e s u p e r v i s o r y power o f mandamus. I d . T h i s C o u r t has w a n d e r e d f a r a f i e l d f r o m t h e t r a d i t i o n a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f this extraordinary writ. 25 1120326 the w r i t u n l e s s doing a b o u t by Id. the t r i a l In t h i s remedy a r a r e i n j u s t i c e judge's a r b i t r a r y or c a p r i c i o u s TLC brought behavior. and A q u i l e x have n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d that t h e y have a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o a w r i t o f mandamus and that the t r i a l case, so w i l l c o u r t had A. an i m p e r a t i v e Clear Legal r i g h t t o mandamus r e l i e f , prove a r o s e o u t s i d e o f A l a b a m a and than the Perry Circuit the case. Right To have a c l e a r l e g a l A q u i l e x must p o s i t i v e l y duty to dismiss (1) TLC that Ronald Weir's (2) t h a t a more a p p r o p r i a t e Court exists in light of and claims forum the acts g i v i n g r i s e to the c l a i m s , the convenience of the p a r t i e s witnesses, and 1975. e.g., 865, 1062, See, 867 t h e i n t e r e s t s o f j u s t i c e . § 6-5-430, A l a . Code 595 So. 2d ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ; Ex p a r t e A l l i e d - S i g n a l , I n c . , 561 So. 2d 1064 D o n a l d v. T r a n s p o r t (Ala. 1990) ("All of L i f e I n s . Co., [the factors] ' p o s i t i v e l y found' to j u s t i f y d i s m i s s a l . . . . " ) ; S o u t h e r n Ry., all 556 So. 2d f a c t o r s are p o s i t i v e l y a c a s e be and 1082, 1091 ( A l a . 1989) and must Ex be parte ("Only when found to r e q u i r e d i s m i s s a l should dismissed."). The movant f o r a d i s m i s s a l "has the burden of p r o v i n g a l l o f t h e s e f a c t o r s , and e a c h f a c t o r must be p o s i t i v e l y p r o v e n i n 26 1120326 order to justify dismissal." Dynamic Options, I n c . v. C r i t i c a r e S y s . , I n c . , 739 So. 2d 41, 44 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) (emphasis added). A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s n o t enough f o r TLC a n d A q u i l e x t o p r o v e one f a c t o r o r t o show a h i g h l i k e l i h o o d that t h e y have s a t i s f i e d t h e f a c t o r s t o j u s t i f y a d i s m i s s a l on t h e basis of the d o c t r i n e provide sufficient o f forum evidence non conveniens; for a trial they must judge t o p o s i t i v e l y f i n d t h a t a d i s m i s s a l i s w a r r a n t e d . Ex p a r t e S o u t h e r n Ry., 556 So. 2d a t 1091. Given the f a c t s before i t , the t r i a l court determined t h a t TLC a n d A q u i l e x h a d n o t met t h e i r b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g a clear legal right t o a d i s m i s s a l b a s e d on t h e d o c t r i n e o f f o r u m non c o n v e n i e n s o r a t l e a s t t h a t t h e y h a d n o t p o s i t i v e l y p r o v e d t h a t t h e y h a d met t h e i r b u r d e n . By i s s u i n g a w r i t o f mandamus, t h i s C o u r t h o l d s t h a t TLC and A q u i l e x d i d , i n f a c t , meet t h e i r b u r d e n . I n e f f e c t , t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n r e v i e w s t h e facts of the case from t h e t r i a l and then comes t o a c o n c l u s i o n d i f f e r e n t judge's c o n c l u s i o n , thereby substituting i t s j u d g m e n t f o r h i s . Such an e x e r c i s e m i g h t be a p p r o p r i a t e novo r e v i e w , whether but the c o r r e c t standard the t r i a l court exceeded 27 of review f o r de a p p e a r s t o be i t s d i s c r e t i o n . The trial 1120326 c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n s are e n t i t l e d to g r e a t e r deference than t h e y a p p e a r t o have b e e n g i v e n i n t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n . B. The to I m p e r a t i v e Duty t o trial perform c o u r t d i d not a r b i t r a r i l y or c a p r i c i o u s l y an i m p e r a t i v e duty. happy t o l i g h t e n submit Perform h i s docket t h a t t h e r e a s o n he Judge by Jones may 2 dismissing this fail have case, been but d i d n o t d i s m i s s i t i s most I likely b e c a u s e t h i s C o u r t has e s t a b l i s h e d a h i g h b u r d e n o f p r o o f f o r p a r t i e s seeking a d i s m i s s a l pursuant to the d o c t r i n e of non conveniens. A t r i a l the precedents positively dismissal of find this that based judge Court, TLC upon t h e issues and and Judge Aquilex factors a n a l y s i s . Ex p a r t e S o u t h e r n The i s , a f t e r a l l , bound t o Ry., of a 556 So. Jones were forum was have i n f l u e n c e d entitled non 2d a t example, Weir might s t i l l d e f e n d a n t s , who be Judge J o n e s ' s follow bound to 2 14, a 1091. several decision. a t t e m p t i n g t o s e r v e one of For the i s a r e s i d e n t of Alabama. In h i s o b j e c t i o n t o TLC and A q u i l e x ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s on t h e g r o u n d o f f o r u m conveniens, to conveniens m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n does n o t t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h a t may forum Weir points out that the "[d]efendant non Gordon J u d g e Thomas ap R. J o n e s ' s t e r m o f o f f i c e e x p i r e d J a n u a r y 2013; he was s u c c e e d e d by Judge C o l l i n s P e t t a w a y , J r . 28 1120326 Booker is a resident of Perry County, Alabama." d i f f e r e n c e does i t make f o r d e f e n d a n t s f r o m O h i o o r t o t r a v e l t o M i s s i s s i p p i r a t h e r t h a n Alabama? serve t h e d e f e n d a n t who i s an Alabama What Illinois I f W e i r were t o resident, would the i n c o n v e n i e n c e t o t h e M i s s i s s i p p i w i t n e s s e s who must t r a v e l t o Alabama who o u t w e i g h t h e i n c o n v e n i e n c e t o t h e Alabama must t r a v e l t o M i s s i s s i p p i ? would not comply with I f the M i s s i s s i p p i w i t n e s s e s an Alabama o n l y W e i r ' s c a s e , and i t was, subpoena, they would o f c o u r s e , W e i r who f o r u m and s u b j e c t e d h i m s e l f t o t h a t knowledge relevant to his chose real Mississippi would i n c l u d e cause Harper. this However, there of action. In forum in three case. [Tommie] C o k e r and of Alabama." " [ I ] t makes l i t t l e another in this his This [Dean] a r e an e q u a l number o f w i t n e s s e s i n case from the S t a t e stated: to witnesses involved [ W e i r ] and O f f i c e r s the w i t n e s s e s may o b j e c t i o n , W e i r s t a t e d : " [ A ] t a maximum, t h e r e a r e o n l y (3) harm possibility. M o r e o v e r , W e i r has s u g g e s t e d t h a t Alabama have defendant I d . As t h i s C o u r t has s e n s e t o move a c a s e f r o m order to accommodate Alabama out-of-state w i t n e s s e s when t o do so w o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y i n c o n v e n i e n c e t h o s e witnesses who reside i n Alabama." 29 Ex parte United Bhd. of 1120326 C a r p e n t e r s & J o i n e r s o f A m e r i c a , A F L - C I O , 688 Weir also Cliff indicated Prosser, an that he accident "has of Jefferson the 2d a t P r o s s e r has J e f f S t a n d r i c h who County, Alabama." of Jefferson and/or w i l l i s also a I d . A l l the 250. services r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t from C o u n t y , A l a b a m a . " He adds t h a t "Mr. a s s i s t e d i n h i s work by retained So. resident foregoing would s u g g e s t t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e had v a l i d r e a s o n s f o r d e n y i n g and Aquilex's III. "We have dismiss. too in a many h i g h - s o u n d i n g letter to her that correspond with J o h n Adams ( O c t o b e r 16, A b i g a i l Adams 144 words," husband, A b i g a i l Adams John, "and too actions definition. of 1774), i n Correspondence of John (John P a t r i c k D i g g i n s By this Court i s s u i n g the ed., do not seem to conform demonstrate yet that w r i t o f mandamus l i b e r a l l y , this required t h i s C o u r t i s a b l e t o i s s u e t h e w r i t . They have n o t to and to A q u i l e x have f a i l e d t o meet t h e h i g h s t a n d a r d factors to 2004) . "Mandamus" C o u r t u n d e r m i n e s t h e m e a n i n g and p u r p o s e o f t h e w r i t . TLC the few them." A b i g a i l Adams, L e t t e r i s a h i g h - s o u n d i n g w o r d d e f i n e d as an e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , the TLC Conclusion once w r o t e actions motion to be that 30 they are entitled and before satisfied to this 1120326 Court's discretionary consideration of t h e i r petition, l e t alone the a c t u a l issuance of the w r i t . By i s s u i n g t h e w r i t o f mandamus h e r e , t h i s essence, i g n o r i n g i t s own h i g h s t a n d a r d s Court is, in f o r mandamus r e v i e w and r u l i n g t h a t Judge J o n e s a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y o r c a p r i c i o u s l y by a d h e r i n g t o t h o s e s t a n d a r d s . On t h e c o n t r a r y , Judge was merely doing what § 6-5-430, A l a . Code Jones 1975, a n d o u r precedent r e q u i r e d h i m t o do. I w o u l d deny TLC a n d A q u i l e x ' s petition f o r the writ o f mandamus; 31 therefore, I dissent.
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.
