Water Works & Sewer Bd. of the Town of Ctr. v. 3M Co. (In re Aladdin Mfg. Corp.)

• Decision Date: 20 December 2019
• Docket Number: 1170887,1171198,1171197,1171196,1170894,1171182,1170864,1171199
• Citation: 305 So.3d 214
• Parties: EX PARTE ALADDIN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION et al. (In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre v. 3M Company et al.) Ex parte Milliken & Company (In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre v. 3M Company et al.) Ex parte Textile Rubber and Chemical Company, Inc. (In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre v. 3M Company et al.) Ex parte Mohawk Industries, Inc., et al. (In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden v. 3M Company et al.) Ex parte Dorsett Industries, Inc. (In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden v. 3M Company et al.) Ex parte Indian Summer Carpet Mills, Inc. (In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden v. 3M Company et al.) Ex parte Oriental Weavers USA, Inc. (In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden v. 3M Company et al.) Ex parte Kaleen Rugs, Inc. (In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden v. 3M Company et al.)
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

305 So.3d 214

EX PARTE ALADDIN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION et al.

(In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre

v.3M Company et al.)

Ex parte Milliken & Company

(In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre

v.3M Company et al.)

Ex parte Textile Rubber and Chemical Company, Inc.

(In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre

v.3M Company et al.)

Ex parte Mohawk Industries, Inc., et al.

(In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden

v.3M Company et al.)

Ex parte Dorsett Industries, Inc.

(In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden

v.3M Company et al.)

Ex parte Indian Summer Carpet Mills, Inc.

(In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden

v.3M Company et al.)

Ex parte Oriental Weavers USA, Inc.

(In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden

v.3M Company et al.)

Ex parte Kaleen Rugs, Inc.

(In re: The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden

v.3M Company et al.)

1170864

1170887

1170894

1171182

1171196

1171197

1171198

1171199

Supreme Court of Alabama.

December 20, 2019

Rehearing Applications Denied March 27, 2020

Sharon D. Stuart of Christian & Small LLP, Birmingham; and Doug Scribner, Jonathan Wells, and David Carpenter of Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for petitionersAladdin Manufacturing Corporation, Mohawk Industries, Inc., and Mohawk Carpet, LLC.

Alfred F. Smith, Jr., and Sela S. Blanton of Bainbridge, Mims, Rogers & Smith, LLP, Birmingham; and William V. Custer and Jennifer B. Dempsey of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for petitionerShaw Industries, Inc.

Richard E. Broughton of Ball, Ball, Matthews & Novak, P.A., Montgomery, for petitionerMFG Chemical, Inc.

C. Paul Cavender and D. Matthew Centeno of Burr & Forman LLP, Birmingham (withdrew 05/29/2019), for petitionerArrowStar, LLC.

Brannon J. Buck, Brett A. Ialacci, and Christopher B. Driver of Badham & Buck, LLC, Birmingham; and Randall Wilson and Michael Dumitru of Miller & Martin PLLC, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for petitionersEngineered Floors, LLC, and J&J Industries, Inc.

John M. Bergquist and Deborah Ann Wakefield of Parsons, Lee & Juliano, P.C., Birmingham; and W. Scott Parrish, M. Ellis Lord, and David M. Barnes of Miller & Martin PLLC, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for petitionerThe Dixie Group, Inc.

Sharon D. Stuart of Christian & Small LLP, Birmingham; and Meaghan G. Boyd and A. Nicole DeMoss of Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for petitionerMilliken & Company.

E. Britton Monroe, Bryan A. Grayson, and Devon K. Rankin of Lloyd, Gray, Whitehead & Monroe, P.C., Birmingham; and Stephen E. O'Day and Andrew M. Thompson of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for petitionerTextile Rubber and Chemical Company, Inc.

H. Edgar Howard of Ford, Howard & Cornett, P.C., Gadsden; and Doug Scribner, Jonathan Wells, and David Carpenter of Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for petitionersMohawk Industries, Inc., and Mohawk Carpet, LLC.

John W. Gray II of Amari & Gray, Birmingham; and Anthony N. Upshaw and Asra A. Chatham of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Miami, Florida, for petitionerLexmark Carpet Mills, Inc.

Cody D. Robinson of Brunson, Robinson & Huffstutler, Gadsden; and Marvin Jerome Elmore, Michael B. Terry, Jane D. Vincent, and Michael R. Baumrind of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for petitionerDorsett Industries, Inc.

John W. Dodson and Michelle L. Crunk of Dodson Gregory, LLP, Birmingham, for petitionerIndian Summer Carpet Mills, Inc.

John G. Dana of Gordon, Dana & Gilmore, LLC, Birmingham; and David C. Higney of Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C., Chattanooga, Tennessee, for petitionerOriental Weavers USA, LLC.

John G. Dana of Gordon, Dana & Gilmore, LLC, Birmingham; and Matthew D. Brownfield of Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C., Chattanooga, Tennessee, for petitionerKaleen Rugs, Inc.

Jere L. Beasley, Rhon E. Jones, Richard D. Stratton, Grant M. Cofer, J. Ryan Kral, and Megan Robinson of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., Montgomery; Thomas O. Sinclair and Lee P. Fernon, Jr., of Sinclair Law Firm, LLC, Birmingham; and Roger H. Bedford, Russellville, for respondentsWater Works & Sewer Board of the Town of Centre and Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden.

STEWART, Justice.

These mandamus petitions present the question whether the Cherokee Circuit Court and the Etowah Circuit Court(hereinafter referred to collectively as "the trial courts") can properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the petitioners, out-of-state companies (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the defendants"), in actions filed against them by the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre("Centre Water") and the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden("Gadsden Water").Centre Water and Gadsden Water allege that the defendants discharged toxic chemicals into industrial wastewater from their plants in Georgia, which subsequently contaminated Centre Water's and Gadsden Water's downstream water sources in Alabama.After moving unsuccessfully in the trial courts to have the actions against them dismissed, the defendants have filed petitions for writs of mandamus seeking orders from this Court directing the trial courts to dismiss the actions against them based on a lack of personal jurisdiction.We have consolidated all the petitions for the purpose of issuing one opinion.

I.Facts and Procedural History

A.The Cherokee County Case

On May 15, 2017, Centre Water filed an action in the Cherokee Circuit Court seeking injunctive relief and damages and asserting claims of negligence, wantonness, nuisance, and trespass against the following companies, among others, located in Dalton, Georgia: Aladdin Manufacturing Corporation, Mohawk Industries, Inc., Mohawk Carpet, LLC, Shaw Industries, Inc., ArrowStar, LLC, Engineered Floors, LLC, J&J Industries, Inc., MFG Chemical, Inc., The Dixie Group, Inc., Milliken & Company, and Textile Rubber and Chemical Company, Inc.("the Cherokee Countydefendants").In the complaint, Centre Water alleged that the Cherokee Countydefendants, who are carpet manufacturers or chemical manufacturers, had released "toxic chemicals, including perfluorinated compounds (‘PFCs’), including, but not limited to perfluorooctanoic acid (‘PFOA’), perfluorooctane sulfonate (‘PFOS’), precursors to PFOA and PFOS, and related chemicals"(hereinafter referred to collectively as "PFC-containing chemicals") from their manufacturing facilities and that those chemicals had contaminated Centre Water's water-intake site.The Cherokee Countydefendants moved to dismiss the action against them, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, and Centre Water filed responses in opposition.

On May 15, 2018, the Cherokee Circuit Court entered a detailed order denying the Cherokee Countydefendants' motions to dismiss, stating, in pertinent part:

"The most illustrative cases cited by the parties relative to this issue are: (1)Horne v. Mobile Area Water & Sewer Sys., 897 So. 2d 972(Miss.2004), and (2)Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., (9th Cir. 2018).

"In both of these cases, there was a question of whether the plaintiffs satisfied the issue of whether the out-of-state defendants had engaged in ‘express aiming’ or ‘purposefully directing’ activities toward the forum state.In both cases, the court held that the plaintiffs had satisfied their burdens on this issue.

"In Horne, property owners in Mississippi sued various defendants, including the Water and Sewer System of Mobile, Alabama (‘the System’), in state court in Mississippi.The System had, in Alabama, released a significant amount of water in anticipation of an oncoming hurricane.The water that had been released damaged and/or destroyed real and personal property downstream in Mississippi.The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that ‘[t]here is no question that [the defendants] knew the water would flow into Mississippi ....’[897 So. 2d] at 979.This act and this knowledge was sufficient for the court to find that the System in Alabama had ‘minimum contacts’ with Mississippi such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction was appropriate.

"In Pakootas, the plaintiffs were citizens of the State of Washington that filed a suit under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) against a Canadian corporation that operated a shelter ten miles north of the US-Canada border.The allegation was that the defendants discharged harmful substances into the waters that flowed downstream to the plaintiffs and caused damage.The court held the facts as set out above and as alleged by the plaintiffs did satisfy the legal tests for personal jurisdiction.

"In drawing a distinction between those cases and the present case, TRCC [Textile Rubber and Chemical Company] points out that it did not dispose of anything directly into any water source and that the distance from the defendants in those two cases and the forum jurisdiction was not as great as the distance in this case.

" ‘ "In considering a Rule 12(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction, a court must consider as true the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint not controverted by the defendant's affidavits, Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d 253(11th Cir.1996), andCable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network Productions, Inc., 902 F.2d 829(11th Cir.1990), and ‘where the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's affidavits conflict, the ... court must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.’Robinson, 74 F.3d at 255(quotingMadara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1514(11th Cir.1990) ).‘For purposes of this appeal [on the issue of in personam jurisdiction] the facts as alleged by the ... plaintiff will be considered in a light most favorable to him [or her].’Duke v. Young, 496 So. 2d 37, 38(Ala.1986)." ’

" Corp. Waste Alternatives, Inc. v. McLane Cumberland, Inc., 896 So. 2d 410, 413(Ala.2004).

...