Ex parte Steiner
| Decision Date | 19 June 1998 |
| Citation | 730 So.2d 599 |
| Parties | Ex parte Kenneth STEINER. (Re Kenneth Steiner v. AmSouth Bancorporation et al.). |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William L. Howell and Brenda Drendel Hetrick of William L. Howell, P.A., Mobile, for petitioner.
Edward A. Dean and Timothy D. Ryan of Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes & Reeves, L.L.C., Mobile, for respondent AmSouth Bank.
The plaintiff, Kenneth Steiner, petitions for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Ferrill D. McRae of the Mobile County Circuit Court to grant Steiner's motion to compel the defendant AmSouth Bancorporation ("AmSouth Bank") to respond to discovery. We deny the writ.
Steiner opened a checking account with AmSouth Bank in 1988. In October 1988, Steiner obtained a loan from AmSouth to purchase an automobile. In May 1991, Steiner filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. AmSouth was given notice of Steiner's bankruptcy proceeding and filed a proof of claim in the amount of $1,849.20. On or about June 28, 1994, the bankruptcy court closed Steiner's bankruptcy case and discharged him from all debts provided for by the plan.
In August 1996, AmSouth debited Steiner's checking account in the amount of $204.67. Steiner notified AmSouth that the debt to AmSouth had been included in his bankruptcy proceeding and was discharged. Thereafter, AmSouth again debited Steiner's account in the amount of $223.90.
On May 30, 1997, Steiner sued AmSouth Bank and several fictitiously named parties, alleging negligence, wantonness, conversion, defamation, and breach of fiduciary duty. Filed with the complaint were interrogatories and a request for production of documents. Steiner's discovery request included the following interrogatories:
On August 4, 1997, AmSouth responded to Steiner's requests for discovery, specifically objecting to interrogatories 7 and 8. After making several attempts to resolve the discovery dispute outside court, Steiner's attorney moved to compel AmSouth to answer the remaining discovery requests. After an ore tenus hearing, the trial court denied Steiner's motion to compel discovery. This petition for the writ of mandamus followed.
A petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate vehicle for challenging a trial court's ruling on a discovery motion. Ex Parte Life Ins. Co. of Georgia, 663 So.2d 929 (Ala.1995). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and the petitioner must show that there is: (1) a clear legal right 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 Brooks, 572 So.2d 409, 410 (Ala.1990); Ex Parte Johnson, 638 So.2d 772, 773 (Ala.1994). In addition, the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte Perkins
...for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate vehicle for challenging a trial court's ruling on a discovery motion." Ex parte Steiner, 730 So.2d 599, 600 (Ala.1998). Circuit courts are vested with discretion in deciding whether to grant postconviction discovery requests. Ex parte Land, 775 So.2......
-
Ex parte Greenstreet, Inc.
...court determines that, based upon all the facts that were before the trial court, that court clearly abused its discretion. Ex parte Steiner, 730 So.2d 599 (Ala.1998); Ex parte Toyokuni & Co., Ltd., 715 So.2d 786 Analysis The primary issue presented by this petition is whether the trial cou......
-
State v. Fowler, 1081021.
...for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate vehicle for challenging a trial court's ruling on a discovery motion.' Ex parte Steiner, 730 So.2d 599, 600 (Ala.1998)." Ex parte Perkins 941 So.2d 242, 245 (Ala. 2006). A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel a trial court to change its discove......
-
EX PARTE WISCONSIN PHYSICIANS SERV. INS.
...for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate vehicle for challenging a trial court's ruling on a discovery motion." Ex parte Steiner, 730 So.2d 599, 600 (Ala.1998) (citing Ex parte Life Ins. Co. of Georgia, 663 So.2d 929 (Ala.1995)). See also Ex parte Mobile Fixture & Equip. Co., 630 So.2d 358......
-
Enforcement
...153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979). See also: Alabama: Ex parte Lang , 738 So.2d 1288 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999); Ex parte Steiner, 730 So.2d 599 (Ala. 1998). Arizona: Link v. Pima County , 972 P.2d 669 (Ariz. App. 1998). California: R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. , 89 Cal.R......
-
Defending and responding in general
...Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979). Alabama : Ex parte Lang , 738 So.2d 1288 (Ala. App. 1999); Ex parte Steiner , 730 So.2d 599 (Ala. 1998). Arizona : Link v. Pima County, 972 P.2d 669 (Ariz.App. 1998). California : R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. , 89 Ca......
-
Defending and Responding in General
...Lando , 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979). Alabama: Ex parte Lang , 738 So.2d 1288 (Ala. App. 1999); Ex parte Steiner, 730 So.2d 599 (Ala. 1998). Arizona: Link v. Pima County , 972 P.2d 669 (Ariz.App. 1998). California: R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. , 89 Cal.......
-
Enforcement
...153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979). See also: Alabama: Ex parte Lang , 738 So.2d 1288 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999); Ex parte Steiner, 730 So.2d 599 (Ala. 1998). Arizona: Link v. Pima County , 972 P.2d 669 (Ariz. App. 1998). California: R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. , 89 Cal.R......