 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ex parte Haynes downard Andra & Jones7/29/2005
alleged that the partnership had been negligent or wanton in hiring, retaining, and supervising Jones.
Haynes Downard timely served a motion requesting, among other relief, the trial court to sever the claims filed against Haynes Downard and transfer those claims to the Birmingham Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court. After the parties filed briefs supporting and opposing the motion, and after oral argument on the motion, which was not transcribed, the trial court denied the motion to sever and to transfer. Haynes Downard then timely filed this mandamus petition.
Standard of Review
"'The question of proper venue for an action is determined at the commencement of the action.' Ex parte Pratt, 815 So. 2d 532, 534 (Ala. 2001). 'If venue is not proper at the commencement of an action, then, upon motion of the defendant, the action must be transferred to a court where venue would be proper.' Ex parte Overstreet, 748 So. 2d 194, 196 (Ala. 1999). 'A petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate means for challenging a trial court's refusal to transfer an action and such a petition is due to be granted if the petitioner makes a clear showing of error on the part of the trial court.' Ex parte Alabama Power Co., 640 So. 2d 921, 922 (Ala. 1994). 'In considering a mandamus petition, we must look at only those facts before the trial court.' Ex parte American Res. Ins. Co., 663 So. 2d 932, 936 (Ala. 1995)."
Ex parte Walter Indus., Inc., 879 So. 2d 547, 548-49 (Ala. 2003). The petitioner for the writ of mandamus has the additional burden of showing
"'"(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner 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 Crawford Broad. Co., [Ms. 1031094, Dec. 17, 2004] __ So. 2d __, __ (Ala. 2004)(quoting Ex parte Perfection Siding, Inc., 882 So. 2d 307, 309-10 (Ala. 2003)(quoting in turn Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So. 2d 497, 499 (Ala. 1995))).
Analysis
This Court has recently decided several cases discussing the "unique legal status" of the Bessemer Division of the Jefferson Circuit Court, all of which reaffirmed the rule that venue is proper in the Bessemer Division only if a case "arises" within the territory of that division. Ex parte Hanna Steel Corp., [Ms. 1031773, Nov. 12, 2004] __ So. 2d __, __ (Ala. 2004); Ex parte DaimlerChrysler Corp., 899 So. 2d 928, 938 (Ala. 2004); Ex parte State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 893 So. 2d 1111, 1114 (Ala. 2004); and Ex parte Walter Indus., Inc., 879 So. 2d at 549-51. As explained in identical phrasing in both DaimlerChrysler, 899 So. 2d at 938, and Hanna Steel, ___ So. 2d at ___, this Court in Walter Industries "reiterated the rule expressed in Ex parte Central of Georgia Ry., 243 Ala. 508, 10 So. 2d 746 (1942), that the jurisdiction granted to the Bessemer Division is limited to those cases arising in that division." (Footnote in DaimlerChrysler omitted.) Thus the rule has a lineage of over 60 years. RockSolid argues that because the complaint asserts claims against parties other than Haynes Downard, as to whom venue is proper in the Bessemer Division, the claims against Haynes Downard are properly joined in the Bessemer Division by virtue of ancillary venue under Rule 82(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.
Rule 82(c) provides:
"Where several claims or parties have been joined, the suit may be brought in any county in which any one of the claims could properly have been brought. Whenever an action has been comme
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Alabama Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|