125 So. 3d 706
Ala.2013Background
- Guster made a fire-loss claim under Nationwide-issued commercial property policies; Nationwide sued in federal court for declaratory relief.
- Guster answered in federal court and asserted compulsory counterclaims, including bad faith and breach, among others.
- In June 2012, Guster filed a state-court action against the agency, Brooks, and Nationwide alleging various tort and misrepresentation theories.
- The agency, Brooks, and Nationwide moved to dismiss the state action under § 6-5-440 (abatement) and Rule 13(a) (compulsory-counterclaim).
- The state trial court denied the motion to dismiss; respondents sought mandamus relief in this Court.
- The Supreme Court granted the petition in part, denying as to the agency and Brooks, but granting as to Nationwide and directing dismissal under the abatement statute and compulsory-counterclaim rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether abatement applies to disallow parallel actions. | Guster argued abatement barred duplicate suits. | Agency/Brooks/Nationwide argued two suits violate § 6-5-440. | Abatement applies to Nationwide claims; dismiss the state action against Nationwide. |
| Whether agency and Brooks are opposing parties in the federal action. | Guster asserts compulsory-counterclaims not applicable; can sue separately. | Agency/Brooks were not parties in federal action; compulsory-counterclaims do not apply. | Agency and Brooks were not opposing parties in the federal action; not required as compulsory counterclaims. |
| Whether Guster's claims against Nationwide are compulsory counterclaims in the federal action. | Guster contends claims arise from the same facts but are not compulsory counterclaims because of non-party status. | Nationwide contends claims arise from same conduct; should have been asserted as compulsory counterclaims. | Nationwide's claims are compulsory counterclaims only if opposing parties; here they are not; however abatement still requires dismissal of Nationwide claims. |
| Whether the state court erred in denying dismissal as to Nationwide. | Nationwide argues it should be dismissed under abatement. | State court should deny; issues are not identical for all defendants. | The court erred as to Nationwide; mandamus directs dismissal of Nationwide claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte J.E. Estes Wood Co., 42 So.3d 104 (Ala.2010) (abuse of mandamus review of abatement/compulsory-counterclaim)
- Ex parte Compass Bank, 77 So.3d 578 (Ala.2011) (mandamus standard; de novo review when facts undisputed)
- Ex parte Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 974 So.2d 967 (Ala.2007) (de novo review; burden on petitioner)
- Ex parte Breman Lake View Resort, L.P., 729 So.2d 849 (Ala.1999) (compulsory counterclaims and abatement interplay; defendant becomes plaintiff in §6-5-440)
- Little Narrows, LLC v. Scott, 1 So.3d 973 (Ala.2008) (scope of 'opposing party' in compulsory-counterclaim rule)
- Sessions v. Jack Cole Co., 276 Ala. 10, 158 So.2d 652 (Ala.1963) (analysis for res judicata-like test in cross-action context)