Ex parte Leasecomm Corp.
Decision Date | 21 November 2003 |
Parties | Ex parte LEASECOMM CORPORATION and MicroFinancial, Inc. and Ex parte Galaxy Mall, Inc. (In re Aaron Cobb et al. v. Galaxy Mall, Inc., et al.) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Roger L. Bates and E. Shane Black of Hand Arendall, L.L.C., Birmingham, for petitioners Leasecomm Corporation and MicroFinancial, Inc.
William H. Brooks and William H. Morrow of Lightfoot, Franklin & White, L.L.C., Birmingham, for petitioner Galaxy Mall, Inc.
Charles A. McCallum III and R. Brent Irby of the McCallum Law Firm, LLC, Vestavia Hills, for respondents.
Galaxy Mall, Inc., a Utah company, and MicroFinancial, Inc., and its subsidiary, Leasecomm Corporation, Massachusetts companies (the Massachusetts companies will hereinafter be collectively referred to as "Leasecomm"), petition this Court for writs of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its order denying their motions to enforce outbound forum-selection clauses in contracts between them and Aaron Cobb. We deny the petitions.
On August 22, 2002, Cobb filed a putative class action against Galaxy Mall and Leasecomm. The complaint contained the following pertinent factual averments:
The complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages "in an amount not to exceed $74,000 per class member." Recovery was sought on theories of (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, (3) fraudulent suppression, (4) conspiracy, (5) theft by deception, (6) conversion, and (7) violation of statutory usury laws.
On October 29, 2002, Galaxy Mall filed a "Motion to Enforce Forum Selection Clause." The motion was based on a clause on the reverse side of the order form provided by Galaxy Mall and signed by Cobb, which provided: "[T]he parties agree that any and all disputes arising out of this transaction ... shall be resolved in the courts of the State of Utah in the County of Utah or the United States District Court for the State of Utah." (Emphasis added.) Specifically, the motion stated: (Emphasis added.)
Leasecomm had filed a similar motion on September 25, 2002, based on a forum-selection clause in the lease agreement entered into between Leasecomm and Cobb; that clause provided:
"The Parties hereby ... consent and submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and expressly agree to such exclusive forum for the bringing of any suit, action or other proceeding arising out of their obligations hereunder, and expressly waive any objection to venue in any such Courts...."
(Some emphasis added; boldface type and some emphasis deleted.) More specifically, Leasecomm's motion stated:
(Emphasis added.)
On April 1, 2003, the trial court denied the motions, stating: "[E]nforcement of either forum selection clause would be unreasonable under the circumstances because the clauses effectively deny [Cobb] and remaining Alabama customers ... their day in court." More specifically, the court said:
These petitions challenge that order.
"[A] petition for a writ of mandamus is the proper vehicle for obtaining review of an order denying enforcement of an `outbound' forum-selection clause when it is presented in a motion to dismiss." Ex parte D.M. White Constr. Co., 806 So.2d 370, 372 (Ala.2001); see Ex parte CTB, Inc., 782 So.2d 188, 190 (Ala.2000). "[A] writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which requires the petitioner to demonstrate a clear, legal right to the relief sought, or an abuse of discretion." Ex parte Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 798 So.2d 656, 660 (Ala.2001). "[T]he review of a trial court's ruling on the question of enforcing a forum-selection clause is for an abuse of discretion." Ex parte D.M. White Constr. Co., 806 So.2d at 372.
At the outset, we note that the issue in this case is not whether an outbound forum-selection clause can be enforced. That issue was settled in Professional Insurance Corp. v. Sutherland, 700 So.2d 347 (Ala.1997). Since then, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Ayers
... ... & Admin., Inc. v. Palomar Ins. Corp., 590 So.2d 209, 212 (Ala.1991) ) ... "[T]his Court `will affirm the judgment ... Ex parte Rice, 265 Ala. 454, 92 So.2d 16 [(1957)] ; Garrett v. Reid, 244 Ala. 254, 256, 13 So.2d 97 ... ...
-
Cullman Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United Propane Gas, Inc. (Ex parte United Propane Gas, Inc.)
...practical purposes be deprived of his day in court." Bremen, 407 U.S. at 18. See also PT Solutions, supra (citing Ex parte Leasecomm Corp., 886 So.2d 58, 62–63 (Ala. 2003) ). Moreover, "the fact that it may ‘be more efficient to proceed as a class’ is not to say that the prohibition of clas......
-
Woerner v. Killian Constr. Co. (In re Killian Constr. Co.)
...a forum-selection clause is for an abuse of discretion.' Ex parte D.M. White Constr. Co., 806 So. 2d at 372."Ex parte Leasecomm Corp., 886 So. 2d 58, 62 (Ala. 2003)."A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the petitioner can demonstrate: '"(1) a clear legal right t......
-
Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. v. JRD Contracting, Inc. (Ex parte Int'l Paper Co.)
...basis that the chosen ... forum would be seriously inconvenient for the trial of the action.’ " Id. at 191 ....’" Ex parte Leasecomm Corp., 886 So.2d [58,] 62–63 [ (Ala. 2003) ] (emphasis omitted). The Court has noted that ‘[t]he burden on the challenging party is difficult to meet.’ Ex par......