102 So. 3d 347
Ala.2011Background
- ATSC is an Ohio corporation in lumber sales; Getloaded defendants are related entities (TransCore, Getloaded Corp, Roper Industries) with various domiciles; ATSC shipped lumber to Florida via Lewis Trucking; Carter (Lewis) caused a fatal collision in Alabama while transporting; Plaintiffs, estates of ADOC van occupants, filed multiple Alabama circuit court actions against Lewis, Carter, Nunez, Swift, ATSC, and later Getloaded defendants; ATSC asserted lack of personal jurisdiction and moved to dismiss; circuit court denied, leading to mandamus petitions by ATSC and Getloaded; this Court grants Getloaded petition and denies ATSC’s, directing dismissal of Getloaded defendants for lack of in personam jurisdiction; special concurrence discusses additional considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alabama has specific jurisdiction over ATSC | ATSC’s contacts with Alabama are insufficient | Alabama exercises jurisdiction consistent with due process | ATSC subject to Alabama jurisdiction for merits |
| Whether Alabama has general jurisdiction over ATSC | General contacts show continuous business within Alabama | No general home forum; not at home in Alabama | No general jurisdiction over ATSC |
| Whether Alabama has specific jurisdiction over Getloaded defendants | Web site operations create related contacts through negligence in publishing carrier info | No purposeful availment toward Alabama; unilateral third-party actions | Getloaded defendants lack specific jurisdiction in Alabama |
| Whether Alabama has general jurisdiction over Getloaded defendants | Contacts via Getloaded.com create substantial presence | No continuous and systematic contacts; not at home in Alabama | No general jurisdiction over Getloaded defendants |
| Remedy for lack of personal jurisdiction | Court should adjudicate merits despite jurisdiction issues | Dismissing is proper when lack of jurisdiction | Circuit court should dismiss Getloaded defendants; ATSC not dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte United Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501 (Ala.1993) (mandamus standard for reviewing lack of in personam jurisdiction)
- Ex parte McInnis, 820 So.2d 795 (Ala.2001) (de novo review of jurisdictional ruling; burden on plaintiff)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (Supreme Court) (due process and foreseen injury; stream-of-commerce")
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court) (minimum contacts and purposive availment; fair play and substantial justice)
- Ex parte DBI, Inc., 23 So.3d 635 (Ala.2009) (reexamined minimum contacts; stream-of-commerce and related factors for jurisdiction)
- Ex parte Covington Pike Dodge, Inc., 904 So.2d 226 (Ala.2004) (jurisdictional principles; evidence in support of motion to dismiss)
- Elliott v. Van Kleef, 830 So.2d 726 (Ala.2002) (due process standard in Alabama extending to federal standard)