Ex parte Scott Bridge Co.
Decision Date | 22 February 2002 |
Citation | 834 So.2d 79 |
Parties | Ex parte SCOTT BRIDGE COMPANY. (In re Tim Bond v. Scott Bridge Company). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Thomas S. Thornton, Joseph H. Driver, and Khristi Doss Flood of Carr, Allison, Pugh, Howard, Oliver & Sisson, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner.
Clay Hornsby of Morris, Haynes & Hornsby, Alexander City, for respondent.
Tim Bond worked for Scott Bridge Company, a bridge construction company with its principal office in Lee County. Scott Bridge discharged Bond in April 2000, after Bond was injured on the job. Bond brought a retaliatory-discharge claim, seeking compensatory damages and punitive damages under § 25-5-11.1, Ala.Code 1975, which states that it is unlawful for an employer to fire an employee "solely because the employee has instituted or maintained any action against the employer to recover workers' compensation benefits." Bond filed his claim in Chambers County, and Scott Bridge moved for a change of venue to Lee County. The trial judge denied the motion. Scott Bridge seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate the order denying the change of venue and to transfer the case to Lee County.
Scott Bridge argues that the case should be transferred to Lee County because, it says, § 6-3-7, Ala.Code 1975, states that, as to a foreign corporation or a domestic corporation, venue is proper:
It is uncontested that Scott Bridge's principal place of business is in Lee County, and that Bond's discharge took place in Lee County. Bond lives in Chambers County, and he argues that venue in Chambers County is proper under § 6-3-7(a)(3), Ala.Code 1975, because, he argues, Scott Bridge does business by agent in Chambers County—it purchases materials from a Chambers County business. Scott Bridge argues that it does not do business by agent in Chambers County, and, thus, that the only proper venue for the action is Lee County.
A petition for the writ of mandamus is the proper method by which to seek review of a denial of a motion for a change of venue. Ex parte Alabama Great Southern R.R., 788 So.2d 886 (Ala.2000). "Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be issued only where 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 Integon Corp., 672 So.2d 497, 499 (Ala. 1995). This Court reviews a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a ruling on venue under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id.
"The burden of proving improper venue is on the party raising the issue and on review of an order transferring or refusing to transfer, a writ of mandamus will not be granted unless there is a clear showing of error on the part of the trial judge."
Ex parte Finance America Corp., 507 So.2d 458, 460 (Ala.1987).
Scott Bridge bears the burden of proving that venue in Chambers County is improper. If Scott Bridge's activities in Chambers County are sufficient to qualify as "doing business by agent" in that county under § 6-3-7(a)(3), Ala.Code 1975, then venue is proper in Chambers County, and the writ of mandamus directing a transfer of the case to Lee County should not issue. If those activities are not sufficient, however, the writ of mandamus directing the trial court to transfer the case to Lee County should issue.
Ex parte SouthTrust Bank of Tuscaloosa County, N.A., 619 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Ala.1993). This Court has made the following distinction between those corporate business functions for which a corporation was created and the exercise of corporate powers incidental to those corporate business functions:
Ex parte Charter Retreat Hosp., Inc., 538 So.2d 787, 790 (Ala.1989).
Scott Bridge notes that it is in the business of constructing bridges and it argues that because it has not built a bridge in Chambers County, it has not "done business by agent" there. The business of Scott Bridge, however, should not be considered so narrowly. To fulfill its principal corporate function of building bridges, Scott Bridge must purchase parts, tools, and equipment with which to perform that principal corporate function. Bond asserts, and Scott Bridge does not refute, that Scott Bridge buys from businesses located in Chambers County supplies that cost in excess of $50,000 a year.
The Court of Civil Appeals, using this Court's guidance as to what constitutes sufficient evidence of "doing business," discussed a business relationship between a company and its parts supplier as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Unum Life Ins. Co. of America v. Wright
...or denying the motion for a change of venue.' Ex parte Perfection Siding, Inc., 882 So.2d 307, 310 (Ala.2003) (citing Ex parte Scott Bridge Co., 834 So.2d 79, 81 (Ala.2002))." Ex parte Sawyer, 892 So.2d 898, 901 Section 6-3-7(c) permits joinder of plaintiffs as to whom venue might not be pr......
-
Walden v. ES Capital, LLC
...by asking whether the trial court exceeded its discretion in granting or denying the motion for a change of venue. Ex parte Scott Bridge Co., 834 So.2d 79, 81 (Ala.2002).’ “Ex parte Perfection Siding, Inc., 882 So.2d 307, 309–10 (Ala.2003). “ ‘ “The question of proper venue for an action is......
-
Willadean Walden & Crooked Creek Properties Inc. v. ES Capital, LLC
...by asking whether the trial court exceeded its discretion in granting or denying the motion for a change of venue. Ex parte Scott Bridge Co., 834 So. 2d 79, 81 (Ala. 2002).'"Ex parte Perfection Siding, Inc., 882 So. 2d 307, 309-10 (Ala. 2003)."'"The question of proper venue for an action is......
-
Nix v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int'l, Inc. (Ex parte Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int'l, Inc.)
...Ex parte Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int'l, Inc., 261 So.3d 1210 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). The Court of Civil Appeals, relying on Ex parte Scott Bridge Co., 834 So.2d 79 (Ala. 2002), held that venue was proper in Jefferson County and that the doctrine of forum non conveniens did not require a transfer ......
-
Alabama's Appellate Standards of Review in Civil Cases
...whether the trial court exceeded its discretion in granting or denying the motion for a change of venue. Ex parte Scott Bridge Co., 834 So. 2d 79, 81 (Ala. 2002). Also, in considering such a mandamus petition, this Court is limited to those facts that were before the trial court. Ex parte P......
-
The Appellate Corner
...Ex parte Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., No. 1170623 (Ala. Jan. 4, 2019) The court overruled Ex parte Scott Bridge Co., 834 So. 2d 79 (Ala. 2002), under which a corporation could be deemed to be "doing business by agent" in a county by purchasing in that county significant materials......
-
The Appellate Corner
...court denied the motion, and MBUSI sought mandamus relief. The CCA denied the petition, reasoning (1) under Ex parte Scott Bridge Co., 834 So. 2d 79 (Ala. 2002), MBUSI's contracting with suppliers located in Jefferson County was sufficient to be "doing business by agent" in Jefferson County......