Ex parte AAMCO Transmissions, Inc.
Decision Date | 03 September 2004 |
Parties | Ex parte AAMCO TRANSMISSIONS, INC. (In re Bryan Maddox et al. v. Heart of Dixie Nissan, Inc., et al.). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Joseph H. Driver and Tom S. Roper of Carr, Allison, Pugh, Howard, Oliver & Sisson, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner.
John J. Lloyd, Tuscaloosa, for respondents.
AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Honorable Dan C. King III to transfer this case from the Bessemer Division to the Birmingham Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court. We deny the petition.
In December 1999 Sylvia Milstead purchased a 1997 Ford Taurus automobile from Heart of Dixie Nissan, Inc., an automobile dealership in Bessemer. In January 2000, Milstead took the automobile to Dixie Nissan to repair a problem she was having with the car, which was hesitating and stopping abruptly and unexpectedly. Dixie Nissan sent the car to Swift Enterprises, an AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., franchisee, for repairs. According to the complaint filed in this case, in April 2000, while Ashley Rosser was driving the automobile in Tuscaloosa County, the mechanical problem caused the automobile to hesitate and/or stop abruptly and unexpectedly; it drifted into an oncoming lane of traffic, where it collided with another automobile resulting in injury to the occupants of the automobile — Bryan Maddox, Sherry Maddox, and Christopher Maddox (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Maddox").
In April 2002, Maddox sued Dixie Nissan, AAMCO, and Ford Motor Company in the Bessemer Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court, alleging negligence, wantonness, breach of implied warranty, failure to warn, and negligent training and supervision and asserting a claim based on the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("the AEMLD").
In June 2002, AAMCO filed its answer to Maddox's complaint. Unlike Ford, which did raise an objection as to venue,1 AAMCO did not raise the issue of venue in its answer or in any responsive pleading filed before the answer.
In June 2003, AAMCO filed a motion to transfer the case to the Birmingham Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court. AAMCO maintained that venue in the Bessemer Division was improper in light of this Court's holding in Ex parte Walter Industries, Inc., 879 So.2d 547 (Ala.2003), and that if the case was transferred to the Birmingham Division, the case "may eventually be consolidated with its companion case Rosser v. AAMCO [Transmissions, Inc.], presently pending therein."
Maddox opposed the motion to transfer, arguing that Ex parte Walter Industries was inapplicable to this case because Dixie Nissan's principal place of business is in Bessemer and the breach-of-implied-warranty claim alleged against Dixie Nissan arose within the territorial boundaries of Bessemer. Maddox further argued that because AAMCO was properly joined as a defendant, venue in the Bessemer Division was also proper as to AAMCO.
In November 2003, the trial court entered an order transferring this case to the Birmingham Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court. Maddox filed a motion to reconsider. Upon reconsideration, the trial court denied the motion to transfer, stating:
Standard of Review
Ex parte Perfection Siding, Inc., [Ms. 1021363, November 7, 2003] 882 So.2d 307, 309-10 (Ala.2003).
AAMCO contends that the trial court exceeded the scope of its discretion when it refused to transfer this case to the Birmingham Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court because, it says, this action did not arise within the Bessemer Division.
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:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walden v. ES Capital, LLC
...Co., 663 So.2d 932, 936 (Ala.1995).’ “Ex parte Walter Indus.[ , Inc.], 879 So.2d [547] at 549 [ (Ala.2003) ].”Ex parte AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., 897 So.2d 285, 287–88 (Ala.2004).Discussion In support of the motion seeking a change of venue, Ensley's primary contention was that venue in the......
-
Willadean Walden & Crooked Creek Properties Inc. v. ES Capital, LLC
...Co., 663 So. 2d 932, 936 (Ala. 1995).'"Ex parte Walter Indus.[, Inc.], 879 So. 2d [547] at 549 [(Ala. 2003)]."Ex parte AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., 897 So. 2d 285, 287-88 (Ala. 2004).Discussion In support of the motion seeking a change of venue, Ensley's primary contention was that venue in t......
-
Ex Parte Volvo Trucks North America, Inc.
...will not be considered in a mandamus proceeding. Ex parte Hanna Steel Corp., 905 So.2d 805, 808 (Ala.2004); Ex parte AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., 897 So.2d 285, 288 (Ala.2004); Ex parte Walter Indus., Inc., 879 So.2d 547, 549 (Ala.2003); Ex parte Fontaine Trailer Co., 854 So.2d 71, 74 (Ala.20......
-
Ex Parte Harper
...responsive pleading or in a motion filed before that first responsive pleading, the objection is waived.'" Ex parte AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., 897 So.2d 285, 288 (Ala.2004) (quoting Ex parte Till, 595 So.2d 871, 872 (Ala.1992)). This Court finds that BSR waived its right to object to improp......