156 So. 3d 397
Ala.2014Background
- Chamberlain (Alabama resident at time of filing) bought a used vehicle from AutoSource Motors, LLC, a Utah dealer, after responding to an online advertisement and phone representations that the car could be retitled in Alabama.
- After returning to Alabama she discovered the title was a "junk" title (not salvage) and the car was misrepresented; she sued in Montgomery Circuit Court for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and suppression.
- AutoSource, a Utah LLC, moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, submitting an affidavit that it has no offices, employees, property, taxes, or purposeful marketing in Alabama and that the sale was negotiated and completed in Utah.
- Chamberlain submitted an affidavit reiterating the transactional facts but filed no response contesting AutoSource’s jurisdictional affidavit with contrary competent proof.
- The trial court denied AutoSource’s motion to dismiss; AutoSource petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to vacate that order and to direct dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alabama courts have general jurisdiction over AutoSource | Chamberlain alleged AutoSource took actions aimed at Alabama citizens | AutoSource had no continuous and systematic contacts with Alabama (no offices, property, employees, taxes, or targeted marketing) | No general jurisdiction — contacts not continuous/systematic |
| Whether Alabama courts have specific jurisdiction based on the isolated sale | Chamberlain argued AutoSource’s representations that the car could be titled in Alabama created contacts with Alabama | AutoSource argued the sale was an isolated contact initiated by Chamberlain; website ad was passive and not directed at Alabama | No specific jurisdiction — single, isolated transaction and passive web listing insufficient |
| Burden of proof after defendant’s prima facie showing | Chamberlain relied on her complaint and affidavit reiterating purchase facts | AutoSource’s affidavit shifted burden to Chamberlain to produce affidavits or competent proof rebutting lack of purposeful availment | Held defendant made prima facie showing; plaintiff failed to rebut; dismissal required |
| Appropriate remedy for denial of jurisdictional dismissal | Chamberlain implicitly sought to proceed in state court | AutoSource sought mandamus to vacate denial and order dismissal | Writ granted: trial court ordered to vacate denial and grant dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Merches, 151 So.3d 1075 (Ala. 2014) (summarizes Rule 4.2(b) and Alabama due-process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (test for purposeful availment and factors for reasonableness analysis)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (defines continuous and systematic contacts for general jurisdiction)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1958) (unilateral activity of a third party cannot establish purposeful availment)
- Ex parte Troncalli Chrysler Plymouth Dodge, Inc., 876 So.2d 459 (Ala. 2003) (approved authority holding isolated or sporadic sales insufficient for jurisdiction)
- Ex parte Dill, Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, P.C., 866 So.2d 519 (Ala. 2003) (mandamus is proper vehicle to challenge denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction)