Cruz v. J & W Enters., LLC (Ex parte J & W Enters., LLC)

• Citation: 150 So.3d 190
• Decision Date: 28 March 2014
• Docket Number: 1121423.
• Parties: Ex parte J & W ENTERPRISES, LLC, and Ezell Coates. (In re Angel Luis Cruz v. J & W Enterprises, LLC, and Ezell Coates).
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

150 So.3d 190

Ex parte J & W ENTERPRISES, LLC, and Ezell Coates.(In re Angel Luis Cruz

v.J & W Enterprises, LLC, and Ezell Coates).

1121423.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 28, 2014.

Alex L. Holtsford, Jr., and Reed Williams of Holtsford, Gilliland, Higgins, Hitson & Howard, P.C., Montgomery, for petitioners.

Michael L. Crow of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., Montgomery; and Wyman O. Gilmore, Jr., of Gilmore Law Firm, Grove Hill, for respondent.

Opinion

MAIN, Justice.

J & W Enterprises, LLC (“J & W”), and Ezell Coates are defendants in an action pending in the Clarke Circuit Court brought by the plaintiff, Angel Luis Cruz. J & W and Coates petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Clarke Circuit Court to transfer the action to the Mobile Circuit Court. We deny the petition.

I. Facts and Procedural History

This action arises from a truck accident that occurred on October 4, 2011, on Interstate 10 in Mobile County. At the time of the accident, Coates was driving a tractor-trailer rig owned by J & W, his employer. According to the complaint, Coates negligently and/or wantonly operated the tractor-trailer rig, causing it to collide with a tractor-trailer rig being operated by Cruz. Cruz claims injury as a result of the accident, but he did not seek any medical treatment in Mobile County as a result of the accident.

The accident was investigated by the Mobile Police Department. Cruz is a resident of Brownsville, Texas; Coates is a resident of Clarke County, Alabama. J & W's principal place of business is located in Clarke County, Alabama. Other than Cruz and Coates, there are no known eyewitnesses to the accident.

On July 23, 2012, Cruz sued J & W and Coates in the Clarke Circuit Court. Count I alleged a claim of negligence and wantonness based on Coates's operation of the tractor-trailer rig; count II asserted a claim against J & W alleging negligent and/or wanton entrustment of the tractor-trailer rig to Coates; and count III asserted that J & W had negligently and/or wantonly hired, retained, or trained Coates.

On August 23, 2012, J & W and Coates moved to transfer the case from Clarke County to Mobile County. In support of their motion, J & W and Coates argued that, under § 6–3–21.1, Ala.Code 1975, Alabama's forum non conveniens statute, the case was due to be transferred “for the convenience of parties and witnesses” and “in the interest of justice.” Cruz filed an opposition to the motion for a change of venue and submitted an affidavit of the investigating police officer, who was employed by the Mobile Police Department and who testified that it was not inconvenient for him to travel to Clarke County to testify in the case. Cruz also submitted an affidavit stating that because Cruz's lawyer was located in Clarke County, venue in Clarke County was more convenient for him. Cruz also noted that both Coates and J & W are located in Clarke County and thus could not claim inconvenience as to Clarke County as a forum. Finally, Cruz argued that, because J & W's place of business is located in Clarke County, the actions giving rise to its alleged negligent and/or wanton entrustment, hiring, retention, and training likewise occurred in Clarke County and, therefore, that the “interest of justice” prong of the forum non conveniens statute compelled that the case remain in Clarke County.

On August 13, 2013, following a hearing, the trial court entered an order denying Coates and J & W's motion to transfer the case. Coates and J & W timely filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking review of the trial court's order.

II. Standard of Review

We have held that “ ‘[t]he proper method for obtaining review of a denial of a motion for a change of venue in a civil action is to petition for the writ of mandamus.’ ” Ex parte Southeast Alabama Timber Harvesting, LLC, 94 So.3d 371, 373 (Ala.2012) (quoting Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So.2d 788, 789 (Ala.1998) ). Nevertheless, the standard for obtaining mandamus review before this Court is a high one:

“ ‘A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and it will be “issued only when there is: 1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; 2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; 3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and 4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.” Ex parte United Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501, 503 (Ala.1993). A writ of mandamus will issue only in situations where other relief is unavailable or is inadequate, and it cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. Ex parte Drill Parts & Serv. Co., 590 So.2d 252 (Ala.1991).’ ”

Ex parte Wilson, 854 So.2d 1106, 1108–09 (Ala.2002) (quoting Ex parte Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 720 So.2d 893, 894 (Ala.1998) ). Moreover, “[w]e apply the abuse-of-discretion standard when considering a mandamus petition challenging a venue ruling, and we will not issue the writ unless the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Ex parte Brookwood Health Servs., Inc., 781 So.2d 954, 956–57 (Ala.2000). “ ‘Our review is ... limited to those facts that were before the trial court.’ ” Ex parte Jim Burke Auto., Inc., 776 So.2d 118, 120 (Ala.2000) (quoting Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So.2d at 789 ).

III. Analysis

Coates and J & W argue that the trial court erred in failing to grant their motion to transfer this case to the Mobile Circuit Court. There is no dispute that Clarke County is a proper venue for this case. Coates is a resident of Clarke County, see § 6–3–2(3), Ala.Code 1975 (“In proceedings of a legal nature against individuals ... [a]ll ... personal actions [other than actions for the recovery of land or on contracts], if the defendant ... has within the state a permanent residence, may be commenced in the county of such residence....”), and J & W's principal office is located in Clarke County, see § 6–3–7(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975 (“All civil actions against corporations may be brought ... [i]n the county of the corporation's principal office in this state....”). Nevertheless, Alabama's forum non conveniens statute permits the transfer of a civil action from one appropriate venue to another appropriate venue “for the convenience of parties and witnesses, or in the interest of justice.” § 6–3–21.1. The forum non conveniens statute provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) With respect to civil actions filed in an appropriate venue, any court of general jurisdiction shall, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, or in the interest of justice, transfer any civil action or any claim in any civil action to any court of general jurisdiction in which the action might have been properly filed and the case shall proceed as though originally filed therein.”

§ 6–3–21.1(a), Ala.Code 1975. “ ‘A defendant moving for a transfer under § 6–3–21.1 has the initial burden of showing that the transfer is justified, based on the convenience of the parties and witnesses or based on the interest of justice.’ ” Ex parte Southeast Alabama Timber Harvesting, LLC, 94 So.3d at 373 (quoting Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co.,

727 So.2d at 789 ).

Coates and J & W argue that the “interest of justice” prong of § 6–3–21.1 compels a transfer of this action to the Mobile Circuit Court.¹ We agree that this action might properly have been filed in Mobile County, the county in which the accident occurred. Nevertheless, “[w]hen venue is appropriate in more than one county, the plaintiff's choice of venue is generally given great deference.” Ex parte Perfection Siding, Inc., 882 So.2d 307, 312 (Ala.2003) (citing Ex parte Bloodsaw, 648 So.2d 553, 555 (Ala.1994) ). See also Ex parte Yocum, 963 So.2d 600, 602 (Ala.2007) (“The trial court should give deference to the plaintiff's choice of a proper forum.”). Thus, we must now determine whether “the interest of justice” overrides the deference due the plaintiff's choice of forum. Our inquiry depends on the facts of the case. Ex parte ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 933 So.2d 343 (Ala.2006).

With regard to the “interest of justice” prong of the forum non conveniens statute, this Court has stated:

“The ‘interest of justice’ prong of § 6–3–21.1 requires ‘the transfer of the action from a county with little, if any, connection to the action, to the county with a strong connection to the action.’ Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So.2d [788,] 790 [ (Ala.1998) ]. Therefore, ‘in analyzing the interest-of-justice prong of § 6–3–21.1, this Court focuses on whether the “nexus” or “connection” between the plaintiff's action and the original forum is strong enough to warrant burdening the plaintiff's forum with the action.’ Ex parte First Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 994 So.2d 906, 911 (Ala.2008). Additionally, this Court has held that ‘litigation should be handled in the forum where the injury occurred.’ Ex parte Fuller, 955 So.2d 414, 416 (Ala.2006). Further, in examining whether it is in the interest of justice to transfer a case, we consider ‘the burden of piling court services and resources upon the people of a county that is not affected by the case and ... the interest of the people of a county to have a case that arises in their county tried close to public view in their county.’ Ex parte Smiths Water & Sewer Auth., 982 So.2d 484, 490 (Ala.2007).”

Ex parte Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc., 10 So.3d 536, 540 (Ala.2008) (emphasis added).

Coates and J & W contend that Mobile County has a strong connection to this case, particularly because it is the forum in which the injury occurred. Indeed, we have stated that, “[a]lthough it is not a talisman, the fact that the injury occurred in the proposed transferee county is often assigned considerable weight in an interest-of-justice analysis.” Ex parte Wachovia Bank, N.A., 77 So.3d 570, 573–74 (Ala.2011). Coates and J & W rely on three recent cases in which this Court held that the “interest of justice” compelled a change of venue.

In Ex parte Southeast Alabama Timber Harvesting,...