EX PARTE ALLOY WHEELS INTERN., LTD.
Decision Date | 21 November 2003 |
Citation | 882 So.2d 819 |
Parties | Ex parte ALLOY WHEELS INTERNATIONAL, LTD. (In re Sue S. Vance, as personal representative of the estate of Katherine Victoria Vance, deceased v. Sonic-Williams Imports, Inc., d/b/a Tom Williams Land Rover; et al.) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Thomas S. Rue, Tracy P. Turner, and William H. Hardie, Jr., of Johnstone, Adams, Bailey, Gordon & Harris, L.L.C., Mobile; an Nathan G. Watkins, Jr., Livingston, for petitioner.
D. Bruce Petway and Rodney F. Barganier of Lucas, Wash, Petway, Tucker & Stephens, P.C., Birmingham; and David T. Shaw of Griess & Shaw, Eutaw, for respondent (Sue S. Vance).
The defendant Alloy Wheels International, Ltd., a foreign corporation engaged in manufacturing aluminum alloy wheels, petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge to vacate his order denying the motion of Alloy Wheels for a summary judgment grounded on lack of personal jurisdiction. Alloy Wheels asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge to issue an order granting a summary judgment in favor of Alloy Wheels. Because the materials before us establish that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Alloy Wheels, we grant the petition and issue the writ.
On September 26, 1999, Katherine Victoria Vance was killed in the rollover wreck of her 1998 Land Rover Discovery sport-utility vehicle. On September 10, 2001, Katherine's mother, Sue Vance, as the personal representative of Katherine's estate, sued a number of defendants, and eventually added Alloy Wheels as a defendant, for Katherine's wrongful death. The plaintiff alleged product liability claims and Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine claims against the defendants. The plaintiff specifically alleged that Alloy Wheels had defectively designed and manufactured the aluminum alloy wheels on Katherine's Land Rover and that a crack in at least one of the wheels caused the fatal wreck. Answering the amended complaint, Alloy Wheels asserted, among other defenses, the lack of personal jurisdiction.
Thereafter, Alloy Wheels moved for a summary judgment on the ground that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Alloy Wheels. Alloy Wheels relied on the allegations of the complaint and on two affidavits of Paul Merritt, the operations director of Alloy Wheels in the United Kingdom. Alloy Wheels argued that it did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Alabama for the trial court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Alloy Wheels.
The plaintiff submitted a brief and evidentiary materials in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The brief submitted by the plaintiff is not among the materials before us, but the evidentiary submissions are.
"[M]andamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ that will be issued only when 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 Horton, 711 So.2d 979, 983 (Ala.1998). "Subject to certain narrow exceptions ..., the denial of a motion to dismiss or a motion for a summary judgment is not reviewable by petition for writ of mandamus." Ex parte Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 825 So.2d 758, 761 (Ala.2002) (citing Ex parte Jackson, 780 So.2d 681, 684 (Ala.2000)). One of the exceptions is the denial of a motion grounded on a claim of lack of personal jurisdiction, Ex parte Sekeres, 646 So.2d 640 (Ala.1994),Ex parte Paul Maclean Land Servs., 613 So.2d 1284 (Ala.1993), and Ex parte Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 443 So.2d 880 (Ala.1983).
Brewer v. Woodall, 608 So.2d 370, 372 (Ala.1992).
Young v. La Quinta Inns, Inc., 682 So.2d 402, 403 (Ala.1996).
Ex parte McInnis, 820 So.2d 795, 802-03 (Ala.2001) (quoting Sudduth v. Howard, 646 So.2d 664, 667 (Ala.1994)). Rule 4.2(a) provides, in pertinent part:
In Ex parte McInnis, this Court explained the application of the stream of commerce doctrine to a products liability case:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex Parte Dbi, Inc.
...Cases Applying United States Supreme Court Precedent This Court adopted the stream-of-commerce-plus test in Ex parte Alloy Wheels International, Ltd., 882 So.2d 819, 827 (Ala.2003). We "The plaintiff now before us argues that the evidence establishes an intent or purpose in Alloy Wheels to ......
-
Dabbieri v. City Boy's Tire & Brake, Inc. (Ex parte City Boy's Tire & Brake, Inc.)
...and “stream-of-commerce-plus” is irrelevant to this case. The cases cited by Dabbieri—Asahi,DBI,Ex parte Alloy Wheels International, Ltd., 882 So.2d 819 (Ala.2003), Brown v. ABUS Kransysteme GmbH, 11 So.3d 788 (Ala.2008), and Ex parte McInnis, 820 So.2d 795 (Ala.2001)—each involved a produc......
-
Ex Parte Duck Boo Intern. Co., Ltd.
...discovery is material to the disposition of the issue of personal jurisdiction. Duck Boo contends that Ex parte Alloy Wheels International, Ltd., 882 So.2d 819, 827 (Ala.2003), holds that merely placing a product in the stream of commerce does not constitute evidence of purposeful direction......
-
Brown v. Abus Kransysteme Gmbh
...Brown filed a brief in opposition to ABUS's motion to dismiss. In that brief, she conceded that this Court, in Ex parte Alloy Wheels International, Ltd., 882 So.2d 819 (Ala.2003), adopted the "stream-of-commerce-plus" test for in personam jurisdiction set out in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. ......
-
This Ain't the Texas Two Step Folks: Disharmony, Confusion, and the Unfair Nature of Personal Jurisdiction Analysis in the Fifth Circuit
...subsequently injure forum consumers. . . . ”), rev’d on other grounds , 504 U.S. 298 (1992); and Ex parte Alloy Wheels Int’l Ltd., 882 So. 2d 819, 827 (Ala. 2003) (following Justice O’Connor’s stream of commerce plus test); Rollin v. William V. Frankel & Co., 996 P.2d 1254, 1257– 58 (Ariz. ......