Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. v. JRD Contracting, Inc. (In re Int'l Paper Co.), 263 So. 3d 1035

Caterpillar sued JRD Contracting, Inc. and John R. Dailey in Wilcox County for breach of loan/guaranty obligations; JRD (an Alabama corporation) later filed third-party claims against International Paper Company (IPC) and three IPC employees.
JRD C & L had a waste‑services agreement with IPC containing an outbound forum‑selection clause naming Tennessee courts as having exclusive jurisdiction for disputes under the agreement.
IPC moved to dismiss the third‑party complaint under Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue based on that forum‑selection clause and moved to stay proceedings pending the venue ruling.
The trial court denied a continuance, kept IPC’s motion "under advisement," and nonetheless set discovery, summary‑judgment deadlines, and a trial date.
IPC petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to rule on the motion to dismiss; this Court stayed the lower proceedings and granted the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus may compel the trial court to rule on a pending motion to dismiss for improper venue (outbound forum‑selection clause)	IPC: trial court must promptly rule; venue is threshold; failure forces waiver or undue litigation expense	JRD: venue is proper in Wilcox County; litigation may proceed while court considers venue	Writ granted — trial court exceeded discretion by leaving motion "under advisement" while allowing merits discovery and setting trial dates; court must rule on the motion
Whether setting merits deadlines and continuing litigation while venue motion pending constitutes waiver of the forum clause	IPC: proceeding with discovery/trial dates forces waiver or substantial invocation of litigation process	JRD: continued litigation appropriate; no waiver shown	Court did not decide waiver on merits but held the trial court erred in sequencing (must rule on venue motion before advancing merits)
Standard for enforcing outbound forum‑selection clauses	IPC: forum clause should be enforced unless challenging party shows unfairness or unreasonable inconvenience	JRD: challenges to clause (fraud, undue influence, inconvenience) justify refusing enforcement	Court recited the governing rule (majority rule): clauses upheld unless clearly shown unfair or unreasonable; but did not resolve clause’s enforceability — ordered trial court to rule

Ex parte Rymer, 860 So.2d 339 (Ala. 2003) (outbound forum‑selection clause implicates venue)
Ex parte Ford Motor Credit Co., 607 So.2d 169 (Ala. 1992) (mandamus may compel trial court to rule on pending motion when judge unreasonably delays)
Ex parte Monsanto Co., 794 So.2d 350 (Ala. 2001) (court directed trial court to decide change‑of‑venue motion promptly before other matters)
Ex parte D.M. White Constr. Co., 806 So.2d 370 (Ala. 2001) (mandamus appropriate vehicle to review refusal to enforce an outbound forum‑selection clause)
Ex parte CTB, Inc., 782 So.2d 188 (Ala. 2000) (forum‑selection clause enforcement review is for abuse of discretion)
Ex parte Leasecomm Corp., 886 So.2d 58 (Ala. 2003) (extraordinary‑writ standards and forum‑selection clause principles)
Professional Ins. Corp. v. Sutherland, 700 So.2d 347 (Ala. 1997) (adopting majority rule: outbound clause enforced unless unfair or unreasonable)
Ex parte Spencer, 111 So.3d 713 (Ala. 2012) (party may waive a forum‑selection clause by substantially invoking litigation process)