Facts and Procedural History On September 24, 2015, Seriana and his wife, Karen Seriana, sued Joe Todd Stevens and various fictitiously named defendants in the Calhoun Circuit Court. The complaint alleged that Joe Todd Stevens was a contractor who did business in northeast Alabama. The complaint further alleged:
"5. In the early morning hours of March 14, 2014, the plaintiff, Tim Seriana, was traversing the premises of his employer, Alabama Speciality Products, Inc. In the hours preceding the plaintiff's course of pedestrian travel, Joe Todd Stevens and/or fictitious party defendants constructed and/or participated in certain landscaping and/or earth removal so as to create an exposed ditch, hole and/or other excavated area. The defendants, both named and fictitious, failed to barricade, recover and/or otherwise light the area[,] thus giving rise to a hazardous, dangerous and/or otherwise altered condition.
"6. While taking his usual pedestrian course from his vehicle to his place of work, plaintiff, Tim Seriana, was caused to fall into the ditch and/or hole and/or excavated area created by the defendants, both named and fictitious.
"7. Plaintiff alleges that the ditch and/or hole and/or excavated area was created without notice to the plaintiff and without warning to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the ditch, hole and/or excavated area was neither barricaded, ‘roped off,’ illuminated and/or otherwise recovered or restored to its original condition so as to warn the plaintiff and/or others of the danger and risk of injury."
In the section designating the fictitiously named defendants, the complaint indicated that the Alabama Speciality Products, Inc., facility, where the injury occurred, was located in Munford, Alabama, which is in Talladega County. Seriana alleged that he suffered injuries and damage as a result of the fall. Seriana asserted that the defendants' actions constituted negligence, willfulness, wantonness, and/or recklessness and that their actions also constituted "a violation of rules, regulations and guidelines governing the conduct of the defendants, both named and fictitious." Karen asserted a claim alleging loss of consortium. On August 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an "Amendment to Complaint to More Particularly Identify Defendant Party." The amended complaint alleged:
"15. That the defendant, Joe Stevens, LLC., is an entity owned exclusively by defendant Joe Todd Stevens. Joe Stevens, LLC., contracted with plaintiff, Tim Seriana's, employer, Alabama Speciality Products, Inc., to excavate and/or otherwise perform certain construction activities on the property of Alabama Speciality Products, Inc.
"16. Although Alabama Speciality Products, Inc., paid Joe Todd Stevens for services that Joe Stevens, LLC., and Joe Todd Stevens provided to Alabama Speciality Products, Inc., Joe Todd Stevens has identified Joe Stevens, LLC., as the entity that, by agreement, performed the services at [the] Alabama Speciality Products, Inc., facility.
"Therefore, pursuant to provisions of [Ala. R. Civ. P.] 15(c)(3), plaintiffs amend their complaint to identify, on the basis of information provided by Joe Todd Stevens, Joe Stevens, LLC., as a proper party defendant to respond to claims made the basis of this litigation."
On August 23, 2016, the trial court entered an order allowing the amendment to the complaint. On August 14, 2017, Stevens filed an answer, and, on June 13, 2018, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss Karen's loss-of-consortium claim.
On October 18, 2018, Stevens filed a motion for a change of venue from Calhoun County to Talladega County. In its motion, Stevens alleged:
"1. The plaintiffs inadvertently filed the case in Calhoun County, Alabama instead of Talladega County, Alabama.
"2. Defendant resides in Talladega County, Alabama.
"3. Defendant's place of business is in Talladega County, Alabama.
"4. The location of the accident occurred in Talladega County, Alabama."
Seriana filed an objection to the motion for a change of venue.
On October 23, 2018, the trial court entered an order granting Stevens's motion for a change of venue and transferring the case to Talladega County. Seriana then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus.
In his petition, Seriana argues that the trial court erroneously transferred this case to Talladega County because, he says, Stevens waived any objection it might have had to venue in Calhoun County when it answered the amended complaint without raising the defense of improper venue. In addressing a similar argument in Ex parte AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., this Court stated:
"In its answer to AAMCO's petition for a writ of mandamus, Maddox maintains that by answering the original complaint without raising the defense of improper venue AAMCO waived any objection it might have to venue in the Bessemer Division.
"In Ex parte Till, 595 So.2d 871, 872 (Ala. 1992), this Court stated:
" ‘Rule 12(b)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] provides, in part:
" ‘ "(b) How presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto, if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: ... (3) improper venue.... A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted."
" ‘Rule 12(b), therefore, requires that a claim of "improper venue" be made in the responsive pleading or in a motion filed before the responsive pleading. A "responsive pleading" in regard to a complaint is an answer. See Rule 7[, Ala. R. Civ. P.]. If a party fails to raise a Rule 12(b)(3) objection in the first responsive pleading or in a motion filed before that first responsive pleading, the objection is waived. There is an exception to that general rule, of course; a party can waive only an objection " ‘then available to him.’ " See Jerome A. Hoffman and Sandra Guin, Alabama Civil Procedure, § 4.82 p. 256 (1990). The exception provides that an objection to the venue of an action may be raised after an amended complaint is filed, if the impropriety of venue appears for the first time in the complaint as amended. Id. The exception to the general rule is not applicable here, because the facts giving rise to the defendant's venue objection did not arise for the first time upon the filing of the amendment. Consequently, the [defendant] did not timely file the motion for a change of venue....’ "
897 So.2d at 288 (emphasis omitted).
In this case, Stevens did not raise the issue of improper venue in a motion for a change of venue filed before it filed its answer. Additionally, Stevens filed its answer almost a year after the filing of the amended complaint. However, Stevens did not raise the defense of improper venue in its answer. Rather, it raised the issue of improper venue for the first time in a motion for a change of venue that was filed more than a year after it filed its answer.
Stevens argues that it did not waive its right to challenge venue because the plaintiffs moved to dismiss Karen's claim on June...
