Ex Parte Puccio, 1031938.
Decision Date | 09 September 2005 |
Docket Number | 1031938. |
Citation | 923 So.2d 1069 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | Ex parte John PUCCIO. (In re Richard Grant and Abigayle Grant v. Cambridge Credit Counseling Corporation et al.) |
William P. Cobb II and Louis M. Calligas of Balch & Bingham, LLP, Montgomery and Kenneth G. Menendez and Jeffery R. Saxby of Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., Atlanta, Georgia, for petitioner.
Submitted on petitioner's brief only.
John Puccio petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to grant his Rule 12(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to dismiss him as a defendant in an action brought by Richard Grant and Abigayle Grant on the basis that the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over him.
On October 22, 2003, the Grants sued Cambridge Credit Counseling Corporation, Puccio, Jessica Spence, and several fictitiously named parties in the Montgomery Circuit Court, seeking damages and injunctive relief arising out of the Grants' participation in a debt-management program offered by Cambridge Credit for the payment of credit-card debt.1 On June 1, 2004, the Grants filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint.2 On June 2, 2004, Puccio moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that as to him the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction. Puccio attached to his motion to dismiss an affidavit, stating that he had no bank accounts or other financial interests in Alabama and that he had never personally spoken to the Grants. He also stated that he had executed the service agreement between the Grants and Cambridge Credit in the course and scope of his duties as president of Cambridge Credit. On June 8, 2004, the trial court granted the Grants' motion to amend. In their amended complaint, the Grants asserted Cambridge Credit was an alter ego of Puccio. On June 25, 2004, Puccio filed a motion entitled "Supplement to Motion to Dismiss," again addressing whether Puccio had minimum contacts with Alabama so as to subject him to jurisdiction here and addressing the alter-ego argument raised in the Grants' amended complaint. On July 6, 2004, Puccio filed a "Notice of Filing Corrected Exhibit 1 to Motion to Dismiss." To that filing Puccio attached a certified copy of a motion to dismiss with attachments, which he had filed in the United States District Court when the action had been removed to the federal court. One of the attachments is a signed affidavit by Puccio, which contains substantially the same factual averments as the affidavit he filed on June 2, 2004. However, the affidavit attached to the July 6, 2004, filing was not a sworn affidavit.3 At a hearing on July 7, 2004, the parties addressed the minimum-contacts argument and the alter-ego argument. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss on August 19, 2004. Puccio timely filed his petition on September 27, 2004.
A petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy by which to challenge an interlocutory order on the issue of personal jurisdiction, and a writ will issue only upon a showing of "(a) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought, (b) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so, (c) the lack of another adequate remedy, and (d) the properly invoked jurisdiction of the court." Ex parte McInnis, 820 So.2d 795, 798 (Ala. 2001).
Ex parte McInnis, 820 So.2d at 798.
In Ex parte Covington Pike Dodge, Inc., 904 So.2d 226, 230 (Ala.2004), this Court stated:
."
In his motion to dismiss filed on June 2, 2004, Puccio argued that, as a corporate officer of Cambridge Credit, he lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Alabama to satisfy the requirements of personal jurisdiction. However, Puccio's motion to dismiss the original complaint is moot because the Grants subsequently amended their complaint. An amended complaint supersedes the previously filed complaint and becomes the operative pleading, unless it subsequently is modified. Grayson v. Hanson, 843 So.2d 146 (Ala.2002). Puccio's June 2, 2004, motion to dismiss is addressed solely to the original complaint, and the original complaint has been superseded. See Holley v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 396 So.2d 75 (Ala.1981)(party should be directed to the amended pleading) that once an amended pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function and any subsequent motion by an opposing ; see also Kentucky Press Ass'n, Inc. v. Kentucky, 355 F.Supp.2d 853 (E.D.Ky.2005)(plaintiff's amended complaint superseded the original complaint, making moot the motion to dismiss the original case); In re Colonial Ltd. P'ship Litig., 854 F.Supp. 64, 80 (D.Conn. 1994)() . Accordingly, Puccio's June 2, 2004, motion to dismiss is moot. That result, however, did not prevent Puccio from filing a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 25, 2004, in response to the amended complaint.4 In his second motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, he discusses the minimum-contacts and alter-ego arguments. We note that Puccio filed an affidavit in support of his first motion to dismiss disputing that he had had the necessary minimum contacts with Alabama to form a basis for personal jurisdiction over him. We also recognize that after he filed his second motion to dismiss, Puccio, on July 6, 2004, filed a certified copy of an unsworn affidavit. Even if the court could have considered that affidavit, the substance of that affidavit does not address the allegations that Cambridge Credit was the alter ego of Puccio.
Due-process concerns are satisfied when a nonresident defendant has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)). Alabama's long-arm rule, Rule 4.2, Ala. R. Civ. P., "extends the personal jurisdiction of Alabama courts to the limits of due process under the federal and state constitutions." Elliott v. Van Kleef, 830 So.2d 726, 729 (Ala.2002). A party's contacts with the forum state can be either general or specific.
""
In Thames v. Gunter-Dunn, Inc., 373 So.2d 640 (Ala.1979), this Court held that officers of an out-of-state bank, who had never been in Alabama and who had conducted no personal business either through the use of the corporation as an alter ego or through personal agents in this state, were not subject to the jurisdiction of Alabama courts. With regard to the alter-ego theory, the Court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
27001 P'ship v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
...to him [or her].' Duke v. Young, 496 So. 2d 37, 38 (Ala. 1986).""' Ex parte McInnis, 820 So. 2d 795, 798 (Ala. 2001).'"Ex parte Puccio, 923 So. 2d 1069, 1072 (Ala. 2005). When a defendant files a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and supports that motion with an affidavit,......
- 27001 P'ship v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (Ex parte Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.)
-
Lowery v. Alabama Power Co.
... ... Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 676 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir.1982); Ex parte Puccio, 923 So.2d 1069, 1072-73 (Ala. 2005). Moreover, the jurisdictional allegations in both ... ...
-
Ex Parte Cristian Dragomir.(in Re James Pike v. Crst Malone Inc.
...rise to such a level as to cause the defendant to anticipate being haled into court in the forum state. Id.”). 2. In Ex parte Puccio, 923 So.2d 1069, 1076 (Ala.2005), this Court observed: “Personal jurisdiction over an individual corporate officer or employee ‘may not be predicated upon jur......
-
Attributing One Party's Contacts With the Forum State to Another: Conspiracy Jurisdiction in Alabama
...dispute in recent history based on this procedure, including: • Ex parte Mclnnis, 820 So.2d 795 (Ala. 2001); • Ex parte Puccio, 923 So.2d 1069 (Ala. 2005); • Ex parte United Ins. Cos., 936 So.2d 1049 (Ala. 2006); • Ex parte Bufkin, 936 So.2d 1042 (Ala. 2006); • Ex parte Reindel, 963 So.2d 6......
-
Preventing Waiver of Arguments on Appeal
...338 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979) ("[A] plea to the merits [of an indictment] admits the validity of an indictment.").20. See Ex parte Puccio, 923 So. 2d 1069, 1077 (Ala. 2005) (denying mandamus relief to defendant on a challenge to personal jurisdiction, but noting that defendant could try again ......