D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Ferrari (Ex parte Ferrari)
Decision Date | 06 February 2015 |
Docket Number | 1130679,1130726. |
Citation | 171 So.3d 631 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | Ex parte Peter FERRARI et al. (In re D.R. Horton, Inc.—Birmingham v. Peter Ferrari et al.). Peter Ferrari et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc.—Birmingham. |
Richard Mark Gaal and Frederick G. Helmsing, Jr., of McDowell Knight Roedder & Sledge, LLC, Mobile, for petitioners/appellants Peter Ferrari et al.
Lisa Karen Atkins and Michael M. Shetterly of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Birmingham, for respondent/appellee D.R. Horton, Inc.—Birmingham.
D.R. Horton, Inc.—Birmingham (“DR Horton”), filed a verified petition in the Baldwin Circuit Court, pursuant to Rule 27(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., requesting preaction discovery from Peter Ferrari; Peter's wife, Kimberly Ferrari; Ferrari Capital Partners, LLC; FH Properties, LLC; P6 Holdings, LLC; and Prince 5 Holdings, LLC (collectively “the Ferrari defendants”). The trial court granted the petition. The Ferrari defendants have petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate its order and to dismiss DR Horton's Rule 27(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., petition. Simultaneously, the Ferrari defendants also have appealed the trial court's order on DR Horton's petition. We grant the petition and issue the writ, and we dismiss the appeal.
Peter Ferrari was employed by DR Horton as a land-acquisition manager for its Gulf Coast division. His responsibilities included researching and acquiring properties for DR Horton to develop. DR Horton asserts that it gave Ferrari confidential information concerning its business and land-acquisition strategies, including its geographical markets for expansion, and that it empowered Ferrari to arrange land purchases for DR Horton.
DR Horton asserts that it received information that Ferrari had supplied third parties with confidential information from DR Horton without DR Horton's permission, including DR Horton's planned land acquisitions, future real-estate developments, markets for expansion, and plans for construction. DR Horton also asserts that it received information that Ferrari had benefited from DR Horton land acquisitions apart from his employment compensation.
Based on the information it had received, on July 9, 2013, DR Horton called Ferrari into a meeting with three DR Horton representatives, including its president for Gulf Coast operations, Scott Whitehurst. According to Whitehurst, Ferrari denied making any money “on the side” in DR Horton related transactions, he denied that his wife Kimberly had received any money from third parties, and he denied that the limited-liability companies he and his wife had formed had received any money from DR Horton related transactions or from third parties. DR Horton requested the tax returns of the Ferrari defendants in order to verify his assertions, but Ferrari refused to provide such information. According to Whitehurst, Ferrari admitted that he had given Brad Zeitlin priority on property deals with DR Horton, but Ferrari was not truthful about the scope and number of DR Horton transactions in which Zeitlin had been involved. Ferrari also claimed that he and his wife had formed their limited-liability companies years before the transactions in question; in fact, however, the formation of those entities coincided with the business dealings DR Horton was scrutinizing.
After Ferrari's meeting with the DR Horton representatives, DR Horton placed Ferrari on administrative leave without pay. DR Horton subsequently contacted third parties that it believed had information concerning Ferrari's conduct. Brad Zeitlin agreed to meet with DR Horton representatives to discuss real-property transactions involving DR Horton and Ferrari. Zeitlin was interviewed for over seven hours by a DR Horton attorney who questioned him about transactions in which he had participated with DR Horton and Ferrari. The DR Horton attorney told Zeitlin that it had reviewed approximately 90,000 e-mails to or from Ferrari as part of its investigation. According to Whitehurst, who was also present during the interview, Zeitlin admitted that he had benefited financially from “tying up” property DR Horton wanted to purchase and then selling it to DR Horton. Whitehurst asserted that Zeitlin admitted that Ferrari had given him priority over other developers, including DR Horton, which allowed Zeitlin to purchase properties that DR Horton wanted.
DR Horton terminated Ferrari's employment effective July 31, 2013, allegedly because Ferrari had repeatedly violated several policies of DR Horton as to confidentiality and the purchase of properties.
On October 11, 2013, the Ferrari defendants filed their “Objection to Plaintiff's Verified Petition for Pre-suit Discovery and Motion to Dismiss.” In their filing, the Ferrari defendants contended that DR Horton's petition was procedurally and substantively deficient under Rule 27(a).
On October 24, 2013, DR Horton filed a motion requesting that the court set a hearing on its petition for preaction discovery. On October 30, 2013, without holding a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting DR Horton's petition for preaction discovery in all respects. On November 13, 2013, the trial court entered an order expressly denying DR Horton's motion for a hearing on its Rule 27(a) petition.
On November 14, 2013, the Ferrari defendants filed what they styled as a “Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Stay, for Protective Order, and Supporting Brief.” The Ferrari defendants argued that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on DR Horton's Rule 27(a) petition, and they reiterated the defects they believed were present in DR Horton's petition. On November 22, 2013, DR Horton filed a response in which it contended that Rule 27 does not require a hearing on the merits of a petition.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Agah v. Bartlett (Ex parte Univ. of S. Ala.)
...and a half years after the denial of the motion by operation of law, the petition is untimely. As this Court recognized in Ex parte Ferrari, 171 So.3d 631 (Ala.2015), because a trial court's order granting discovery is not a final order, a motion to reconsider that order is not a postjudgme......
-
Jackson v. City of Montgomery (Ex parte City of Montgomery), 1150439, 1150452.
...27 under Rule 35."This court heard arguments from both counsel who referred to the recent Alabama Supreme Court opinion of Ex parte Ferrari, 171 So.3d 631 (Ala.2015), and this Court having considered the same as well as arguments from counsel, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED tha......
-
The Alabama Supreme Court Reverses Course On The Broad Use Of Prepetition Discovery
...to prepetition discovery for the purpose of perpetuation or preserving evidence that was at risk of being lost. In Ex parte Ferrari, 171 So. 3d 631 (Ala. 2015), the Alabama Supreme Court reexamined its findings in Ex parte Anderson. Based on the plain language of the rule and its historical......