Ex parte Baker
| Decision Date | 26 October 1984 |
| Citation | 459 So.2d 873 |
| Parties | Ex parte John B. BAKER. (In re Terrell S. MAYES v. John B. BAKER). 83-1093. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
John D. Richardson and Vincent A. Noletto, Jr. of Brown, Hudgens, Richardson, Mobile, for petitioner.
Richard E. Browning of Cunningham, Bounds, Yance, Crowder & Brown, Mobile, for respondent.
Petitioner (defendant) seeks a writ of mandamus to the trial court, directing it to set aside its order granting respondent's (plaintiff's) Rule 60(b)(6), A.R.Civ.P., motion and reinstating plaintiff's case after it had been dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff filed this action against the defendant in Mobile Circuit Court on November 19, 1980. The case arose out of the May 16, 1980, collision between the defendant's automobile and plaintiff's motorcycle. Plaintiff's complaint contained allegations of negligence and claimed $250,000 in compensatory damages for the personal injuries he suffered as a result of the collision.
On March 11, 1981, the defendant served on plaintiff a set of interrogatories and a request for production of documents. These discovery requests went unanswered for almost 15 months, and, on June 1, 1982, counsel for defendant wrote counsel for plaintiff asking that plaintiff file responses to these discovery requests within 14 days. Plaintiff failed to respond to this letter. Then, on June 18, 1982, defendant filed two discovery motions seeking orders compelling plaintiff to answer the interrogatories and respond to defendant's request for production of documents. Once again, defendant's counsel wrote plaintiff's counsel, on July 29, 1982, requesting that plaintiff respond immediately to the interrogatories and request for production of documents. Again, plaintiff failed to respond.
After a hearing on defendant's discovery motions, the court granted both motions on August 20, 1982, and gave plaintiff 10 days in which to answer defendant's interrogatories and to produce the documents requested, or suffer a dismissal. Plaintiff failed to comply with this order. On September 9, 1982, the trial court dismissed plaintiff's action with prejudice.
Plaintiff did not appeal the order of dismissal; however, some 19 months after the order of dismissal was entered, plaintiff obtained different counsel and filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion on April 26, 1984, which stated only the following:
"Comes the Plaintiff in the above cause and moves the Court for an Order setting aside the Court's previous Order dismissing Plaintiff's cause of action in accordance with Rule 60(b)(6), of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure."
In response to plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(6) motion, defendant filed a motion in opposition, stating as grounds, among others, plaintiff's failure to allege and prove any of the grounds set out under Rule 60. Defendant further alleged:
After a hearing on this motion, on May 18, 1984, of which no record was preserved, the trial court granted to plaintiff Rule 60(b)(6) relief and reinstated his case. Because this order of the trial court is interlocutory, the defendant filed this petition for a writ of mandamus. Ex parte Hartford Ins. Co., 394 So.2d 933 (Ala.1981). The only issue presented is whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion, thereby requiring this Court to issue the writ of mandamus and direct that the trial court's order reinstating this case be vacated.
Rule 60(b) provides in pertinent part:
In his petition, defendant contends that the plaintiff failed to allege in his motion any grounds justifying extraordinary relief under Rule 60(b)(6), and that plaintiff failed to present any competent evidence at the hearing on the motion that would support his 60(b)(6) motion for relief. Furthermore, defendant moves to strike an affidavit, filed by plaintiff simultaneously with his brief in opposition to issuance of the writ of mandamus, and argues that it should not be considered by this Court.
The affidavit in question was affixed to plaintiff's brief and labeled "Exhibit A." It consists of a statement by the plaintiff, dated July 25, 1984, which purports to substantiate grounds for plaintiff's motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Defendant maintains that neither this affidavit nor testimony to its effect was presented to the trial court at the hearing on the motion. Plaintiff does not dispute this fact, and further fails to provide copies of any record of the hearing below which "would be essential to an understanding" of the basis upon which the trial court granted plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(6) motion. Rule 21(a), A.R.A.P. Apparently, plaintiff's counsel, at the hearing on the motion, explained to the trial court the reasons why no action had been taken by plaintiff for 19 months, without benefit of testimony or an affidavit by plaintiff or his former counsel substantiating the reasons given.
Without question, a movant must both allege and prove one of the grounds set forth in Rule 60 in order to be granted relief under that rule. Raine v. First Western Bank, 362 So.2d 846 (Ala.1978). Moreover, because Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary relief, a movant has the burden of proving extraordinary circumstances and/or extreme hardship or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gillis v. Frazier
... ... Clark, 468 So.2d 138, 140 (Ala.1985) ; Chambers County Comm'rs v. Walker, 459 So.2d 861 (Ala.1984) ; Ex parte Hartford Ins. Co., 394 So.2d 933, 93536 (Ala.1981) ; Rebel Oil Co. v. Pike, 473 So.2d 529 (Ala.Civ.App.1985) ; Charles Townsend Ford, Inc. v ... " Ex parte A & B Transp., Inc., 8 So.3d 924, 932 (Ala.2007) (quoting Ex parte Baker, 459 So.2d 873, 876 (Ala.1984) (emphasis added)). Given the conflicting evidence, we must conclude that Dr. Gillis failed to meet his " burden of ... ...
-
Ex parte Ebbers
... ... 2001) ; "`On review by mandamus, we must look at only those facts before the trial court.'" Ex parte Ford Motor Credit 871 So.2d 795 Co., 772 So.2d 437, 442 (Ala.2000)(quoting Ex parte Baker, 459 So.2d 873, 875 (Ala. 1984) ); "[T]his Court is bound by the [materials before it], and it cannot consider a statement or evidence in a party's brief that was not before the trial court." Ex parte Pike Fabrication, Inc., 859 So.2d 1089, 1091 (Ala.2002) ... Certainly, no trial judge can be ... ...
-
Ex parte Snoddy
... ... Hamrick Construction Co., 481 So.2d 881 (Ala.1985), we have consistently recognized that mandamus should be granted only when the petitioner makes a clear showing that the trial court abused its discretion by exercising it in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Ex Parte Baker, 459 So.2d 873 (Ala.1984) ... The majority opinion seems to recognize that the City Stores case is the closest Alabama case on point, and concludes that, because the petitioner distinguished the present case from City Stores so well, her petition for a writ of mandamus should be ... ...
-
Ex parte Monsanto Co.
... ... See also Ex parte Singleton, 475 So.2d 186, 188 (Ala.1985) ("`On review by mandamus, we must look at only those facts before the [court below].'" (quoting Ex parte Baker, 459 So.2d 873, 876 (Ala.1984) )). This does not, however, end our analysis of the media exhibits; we must also consider the reliability and the weight of the exhibits to determine whether they constitute sufficient evidence that Judge Laird has demonstrated the appearance of bias ... ...