213 So. 3d 587
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- The Alabama Board of Cosmetology and Barbering fined Shahjahan Jason Smith $250 for practicing cosmetology without a license after an administrative-law judge found he used a wax pot, held himself out as a Managing Cosmetologist, and worked in an unlicensed establishment.
- Smith filed a notice of appeal with the Board and simultaneously filed a notice of appeal and a petition for judicial review in Jefferson Circuit Court.
- The Board moved to transfer the judicial-review action to Montgomery Circuit Court under Ala. Code § 34-7B-11(b), which states that "all appeals shall be filed in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County."
- Smith opposed transfer, citing the AAPA venue statute, Ala. Code § 41-22-20(b), arguing venue was proper in Jefferson County because he resides and operates his business there.
- Jefferson Circuit Court denied the Board’s motion to transfer; the Board petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus directing transfer to Montgomery.
- The court granted mandamus, holding § 34-7B-11(b) specifically controls venue for appeals/judicial review of Board decisions and requires transfer to Montgomery Circuit Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AAPA venue (§ 41-22-20(b)) or Board-specific statute (§ 34-7B-11(b)) controls venue for Smith’s judicial-review petition | Smith: AAPA controls; venue proper in Jefferson because of his residence and business | Board: § 34-7B-11(b) specifically requires all appeals from Board decisions be filed in Montgomery | Held for Board: § 34-7B-11(b) is a specific statutory venue provision and controls; transfer to Montgomery required |
| Whether a petition for judicial review is treated as an "appeal" for venue purposes | Smith: he seeks judicial review (including constitutional claims) distinct from an "appeal" | Board: AAPA treats petitions for judicial review as appeals for procedural/venue purposes; other statutes that specify venue govern | Held: A petition for judicial review is treated as an appeal for venue purposes; a statute specifically providing venue (§ 34-7B-11(b)) governs |
| Whether Smith’s due-process/access-to-court claim (litigating in Montgomery) was properly before the court on transfer motion | Smith: transfer would deny due process because of burden of litigating in Montgomery | Board: Smith did not raise that claim in the trial court’s transfer proceedings | Held: Smith did not present a due-process objection below; mandamus review is limited to the trial-court record, so no reversal on that basis |
| Whether mandamus was the appropriate remedy to compel transfer | Smith: (implicit) denial should stand | Board: denial of transfer was a clear, mandatory duty error requiring mandamus | Held: Mandamus granted; Jefferson Court ordered to vacate denial and transfer the appeal to Montgomery |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Smith, 683 So.2d 431 (Ala. 1996) (administrative agency cannot decide constitutional issues; such claims go to judicial review)
- Ex parte Water Works Bd. of Birmingham, 177 So.3d 1167 (Ala. 2014) (AAPA venue governs where the other statute lacks a venue provision)
- Eley v. Medical Licensure Comm’n of Ala., 904 So.2d 269 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (treating filing of notice of appeal as petition for judicial review for venue purposes)
- Ex parte Overstreet, 748 So.2d 194 (Ala. 1999) (if venue improper at commencement, defendant may move to transfer to proper venue)
- Ex parte Michelin N. Am., Inc., 56 So.3d 604 (Ala. 2010) (mandamus is appropriate remedy to correct trial court’s failure to perform a clear, imperative duty)