Brantley v. Bassett (Ex parte Merches)
Decision Date | 14 March 2014 |
Docket Number | 1120965. |
Citation | 151 So.3d 1075 |
Parties | Ex parte Clay MERCHES. (In re Cora Brantley et al. v. Dwight Bassett et al.). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
C. Winston Sheehan, Jr., and D. Kirby Howard, Jr., of Ball, Ball, Matthews & Novak, P.A., Montgomery; and Prince D. Chestnut, Selma, for petitioner.
Christopher A. Thigpen, Tuscaloosa, for respondents.
Clay Merches petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to dismiss, for lack of personal jurisdiction, the claims against him. We grant the petition and issue the writ.
In September 2011, Cora Brantley, Emanuel Brantley, and Sharon Brantley (collectively “the plaintiffs”) sued Builders Transportation Company, LLC (“Builders Transportation”), and Dwight Bassett, an employee of Builders Transportation, in the Hale Circuit Court.1 The case concerns a missing flatbed trailer owned by Builders Transportation, a Tennessee company. The plaintiffs are Alabama residents. The complaint alleged that the parties had entered into a contract in which Builders Transportation and Bassett had agreed to pay the plaintiffs $10,000 in return for information about the location of the missing trailer. The plaintiffs further alleged that Builders Transportation and Bassett had breached that contract by failing to pay the plaintiffs $10,000 for the information given about the trailer, which was located in a field in Hale County. Instead of receiving $10,000, the plaintiffs were arrested in Hale County and charged with receiving stolen property and conspiracy to commit theft of property. Those charges were later dismissed. Regarding the dismissed charges, the complaint also alleged claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
In July 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Merches, an employee of Builders Transportation, as a defendant. The claims and factual allegations made against Merches in the amended complaint are the same as those made against Builders Transportation and Bassett. Merches filed a Rule 12(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to dismiss the claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. In his motion to dismiss, Merches argued that he lacked the required minimum contacts with Alabama sufficient to give the trial court personal jurisdiction over him. In support of his motion, Merches attached his own affidavit, in which he stated, in pertinent part:
The plaintiffs filed a response to the motion to dismiss, arguing that the trial court has personal jurisdiction over Merches. The plaintiffs attached to their response an incident report, prepared by the Hale County Sheriff's Office, documenting the recovery in Hale County of the trailer belonging to Builders Transportation. According to the incident report, the incident was reported by Bassett, Merches's supervisor. The incident report lists Builders Transportation as the “victim” and lists Cora Brantley and Sharon Brantley, two of the plaintiffs in this case, as “suspects.” In pertinent part, the incident report contains the following description regarding the recovery of the trailer:
[. [.
On April 9, 2013, the trial court denied Merches's motion to dismiss. Merches subsequently filed another motion, again asking the trial court to dismiss the claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. Although Merches called that motion a Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to alter, amend, or vacate the denial of his Rule 12(b)(2) motion, a Rule 59 motion may be made only in reference to a final judgment. See Ex parte Troutman Sanders, LLP, 866 So.2d 547, 549–50 (Ala.2003). Because the denial of the Rule 12(b)(2) motion was not a final judgment, Merches's purported Rule 59 motion in reference to that denial was simply a second motion seeking dismissal. The trial court denied the second motion seeking dismissal also. On May 21, 2013, Merches filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to this Court.
A petition for a writ of mandamus is the proper vehicle by which to challenge the denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Ex parte Dill, Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, P.C., 866 So.2d 519, 525 (Ala.2003). “An appellate court considers de novo a trial court's judgment on a party's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.” Elliott v. Van Kleef, 830 So.2d 726, 729 (Ala.2002). However, “an appellate court must give deferential consideration to any findings of fact made by a trial court based on evidence received ore tenus in connection with a determination as to the nature and extent of a foreign defendant's contacts with the forum state.” Ex parte American Timber & Steel Co., 102 So.3d 347, 353 n. 7 (Ala.2011).
Ex parte Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 720 So.2d 893, 894 (Ala.1998).
The extent of an Alabama court's personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant is governed by Rule 4.2(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. Rule 4.2(b), as amended in 2004, provides:
In Hiller Investments, Inc. v. Insultech Group, Inc., 957 So.2d 1111, 1115 (Ala.2006), this Court explained:
“The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the trial court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” J.C. Duke & Assocs. Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. West, 991 So.2d 194, 196 (Ala.2008).
To continue reading
Request your trial- SDM Elec., LLC v. Florence (Ex parte Led Corporations, Inc.)
-
MARC Transp. LLC v. Aviation Dep't, LLC (In re Maint. Grp., Inc.), 1160914
...is the proper method by which to challenge the denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Ex parte Merches, 151 So.3d 1075, 1078 (Ala. 2014) ; Ex parte Alamo Title Co., 128 So.3d 700, 707 (Ala. 2013). In such a case, this Court applies the following standard of review:......
- Chamberlain v. Autosource Motors, LLC (Ex parte Autosource Motors, LLC.)
- Meeks v. Morrow
-
Obtaining Personal Jurisdiction: a Deceptively Complex Stage of Litigation
...TV Azteca, 490 S.W.3d at 52-53.119. Id. at 53.120. Id. at 54.121. Ex parte Gudel AG, 183 So.3d 147, 155 (Ala.2015); Ex parte Merches, 151 So.3d 1075, 1078 (Ala.2014).122. Ex parte Bufkin, 936 So.2d 1042, 1045 (Ala.2006)123. Id.124. See Ex parte Troncalli Chrysler Plymouth Dodge, Inc., 876 S......