Ex Parte Autauga Heating & Cooling Llc
Decision Date | 24 September 2010 |
Docket Number | 1090342. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | Ex parte AUTAUGA HEATING & COOLING, LLC, and Richard Alexander Rogers.(In re Lori Lee Wrightv.Autauga Heating & Cooling, LLC, and Richard Alexander Rogers). |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Paul M. James, Jr., of Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A., Montgomery, for petitioners.
Julia A. Beasley of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., Montgomery, for respondent.PER CURIAM.
Autauga Heating & Cooling, LLC, and Richard Alexander Rogers (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the petitioners”) petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Montgomery Circuit Court to transfer this action to Elmore County on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. We grant the petition and issue the writ.
Facts and Procedural History
On August 3, 2007, Lori Lee Wright, a resident of Elmore County, was driving northbound on the Deatsville Highway in Elmore County. Rogers, a resident of Montgomery County, was driving a vehicle owned by Autauga Heating & Cooling, which has its principal place of business in Autauga County, and was traveling southbound on the Deatsville Highway. Rogers attempted to turn left into a private driveway and was struck by Wright's vehicle as he crossed her pathway. Rogers alleges that Wright was traveling at an excessive rate of speed. Emergency medical technicians who reside in Elmore County responded to the scene of the accident and provided emergency treatment to Wright.1
Wright sued the petitioners in the Montgomery Circuit Court on March 31, 2009. On May 6, 2009, the petitioners filed a motion to transfer the case to the Elmore Circuit Court based on § 6–3–21.1, Ala.Code 1975, the forum non conveniens statute. The trial court denied the motion.
Standard of Review
Ex parte Kane, 989 So.2d 509, 511 (Ala.2008).
Discussion
All parties agree that venue in this case is proper in both Montgomery County and Elmore County. However, the petitioners argued in their motion for a change of venue before the trial court as well as in their petition for the writ of mandamus that the case should be transferred to Elmore County pursuant to § 6–3–21.1(a), Ala.Code 1975, the forum non conveniens statute. Section 6–3–21.1(a) provides:
“With respect to civil actions filed in an appropriate venue, any court of general jurisdiction shall, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, or in the interest of justice, transfer any civil action or any claim in any civil action to any court of general jurisdiction in which the action might have been properly filed and the case shall proceed as though originally filed therein....”
“A party moving for a transfer under § 6–3–21.1 has the initial burden of showing, among other things, one of two factors: (1) that the transfer is justified based on the convenience of either the parties or the witnesses, or (2) that the transfer is justified ‘in the interest of justice.’ ” Ex parte Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc., 10 So.3d 536, 539 (Ala.2008) ( ). The petitioners argue that a transfer of the case to Elmore County is justified both for the convenience of the parties and witnesses as well as in the interest of justice. This Court need not analyze the convenience factor because we hold that a transfer is required under the interest-of-justice factor.
This Court addressed the same issue in Ex parte Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc., supra. In Indiana Mills, this Court stated:
Historically, the plaintiff has had the initial choice of venue under the system established by the legislature for determining venue. Before the enactment of § 6–3–21.1 by the Alabama Legislature in 1987, a plaintiff's choice of venue could not be disturbed on the basis of convenience to the parties or the witnesses or in the interest of justice. With the adoption of § 6–3–21.1, trial courts now have “the power and the duty to transfer a cause when ‘the interest of justice’ requires a transfer.” Ex parte First Family Fin. Servs., Inc., 718 So.2d 658, 660 (Ala.1998) (emphasis added). In First Family, this Court noted that an argument that trial judges have almost unlimited discretion in determining whether a case should be transferred under § 6–3–21.1 “must be considered in light of the fact that the Legislature used the word ‘shall’ instead of the word ‘may’ in § 6–3–21.1.” 718 So.2d at 660. This Court has further held that “Alabama's forum non conveniens statute is compulsory.” Ex parte Sawyer, 892 So.2d 898, 905 n. 9 (Ala.2004).
The petitioners argue that a transfer of the case to Elmore County is warranted because (1) the accident occurred in Elmore County, (2) Wright, the plaintiff, lives in Elmore County, (3) Autauga Heating & Cooling has its principal place of business in Autauga County with business connections to Elmore County but “few, if any, business connections with Montgomery County,” and (4) witnesses, including the emergency medical technician who assisted in transporting Wright to the hospital after the accident, reside in Elmore County.2 Wright, however, argues that the case should remain in Montgomery County because, she alleges, (1) Rogers is a resident of Montgomery County, (2) Wright's treating physician is located in Montgomery County, (3) Baptist Medical Center South and the Montgomery Surgical Center, where Wright was treated for injuries sustained in the accident, are both located in Montgomery County, (4) Wright sought chiropractic treatment and physical therapy in Autauga County, but the chiropractor who treated her also maintains a Montgomery office, (5) the state trooper who investigated the accident is based out of the Montgomery post of the Alabama Department of Public Safety, and (6) two witnesses live in Crestview, Florida, and would be able to fly directly to the Montgomery Regional Airport. Although Wright alleges that these facts are undisputed, nothing before this Court reflects that Wright presented any evidence to the trial court showing that her treating physician is located in Montgomery, that she was treated at Baptist Medical Center South or at the Montgomery Surgical Center, that she sought chiropractic treatment in Autauga County from a chiropractor who also has an office in Montgomery County, or that the state trooper who investigated the accident is based out of the Montgomery post of the Department of Public Safety. Wright merely makes these assertions in her brief in opposition to the petitioners' motion for a change of venue, and that brief was not accompanied by any affidavits or any other forms of evidence that would have attested to the veracity of these statements. As this Court has previously held:
Ex parte ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 933 So.2d 343, 345 (Ala.2006). See also Ex parte Verbena United Methodist Church, 953 So.2d 395, 399 (Ala.2006). Because the information before this Court regarding Wright's assertions is contained in “statements of counsel in motions, briefs,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vogler v. Interstate Freight USA, Inc. (Ex parte Interstate Freight USA, Inc.)
...'Alabama's forum non conveniens statute is compulsory.' Ex parte Sawyer, 892 So.2d 898, 905 n. 9 (Ala.2004)."Ex parte Autauga Heating & Cooling, LLC, 58 So.3d 745, 748–49 (Ala.2010)."The 'interest of justice' prong of § 6–3–21.1 requires 'the transfer of the action from a county with little......
-
Elliott v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Ex parte Elliott)
...Ex parte Wachovia Bank, N.A., 77 So.3d 570, 576–78 (Ala. 2011) (Murdock, J., dissenting); and Ex parte Autauga Heating & Cooling, LLC, 58 So.3d 745, 751–52 (Ala. 2010) (Murdock, J., dissenting), this Court has held that "[t]he ‘interest of justice’ prong of § 6–3–21.1 requires ‘the transfer......
-
Huffstutler v. Tyson Chicken, Inc. (Ex parte Tyson Chicken, Inc.)
...to the original forum:a. the defendant corporation's principal place of business was located there.• Ex parte Autauga Heating & Cooling, LLC, 58 So.3d 745 (Ala. 2010) (ordering transfer of case from Montgomery County to Elmore County)1. Connections to the transferee forum:a. the accident oc......
-
Delaney Exch., LLC v. Eng'g Design Grp., LLC (Ex parte Eng'g Design Grp., LLC)
...and that the forum county's sole contact with the case was that two of the three defendants resided there); Ex parte Autauga Heating & Cooling, LLC, 58 So.3d 745, 750 (Ala.2010) (noting that, where Montgomery County's only connection to the case was that one defendant resided there and anot......