Lugo de Vega v. Shelton, 65 So. 3d 886

Plaintiffs petition for mandamus to vacate Jefferson Circuit Court’s order transferring their claims against Tom Shelton, James Shelton, and Jay Electric to Tuscaloosa County.
Wilson defendants petition for mandamus to transfer plaintiffs’ claims against them to Tuscaloosa County; that petition is denied.
August 3, 2007 accident fatally electrocuted Sylvestre Vega at a drilling site; Vega worked for Capstone Drilling in Tuscaloosa County, while the generator site was in Jefferson County.
Original defendant Tom Shelton resides in Tuscaloosa County; venue in Jefferson County depended on where the acts occurred, with the initial claim targeting acts/omissions allegedly in Jefferson County.
Motions to transfer venue were filed late by Sheltons and Jay Electric; the trial court transferred some defendants’ claims, prompting mandamus petitions.
The court held Sheltons’ and Jay Electric’s venue-change motions untimely, constituting a waiver of improper-venue defense; Wilson defendants waived improper-venue defense under Rule 12(h) due to an improper amended answer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jefferson County venue was improper as to Tom Shelton at commencement	Venue improper because acts occurred in Tuscaloosa County.	Venue proper if some acts occurred in Jefferson County.	Venue improper; transfer required absent timely objection.
Whether Sheltons and Jay Electric timely moved for a transfer to Tuscaloosa, waiving improper venue	Motions were timely and preserved venue challenge.	Motions were untimely and waived improper-venue defense.	Motions untimely; waiver of improper-venue defense established.
Whether Wilson defendants waived improper-venue defense and thus lacked a right to mandamus	Wilson defenses preserved via Rule 82 and timely amendment.	Amended answer was not timely; did not preserve improper-venue defense.	Wilson waiver established; mandamus denied for Wilson defendants.

Ex parte Inverness Constr. Co., 775 So.2d 153 (Ala. 2000) (mandamus standard for venue orders)
Ex parte Gates, 675 So.2d 371 (Ala. 1996) (mandamus requirements for venue rulings)
Ex parte Pfizer, Inc., 746 So.2d 960 (Ala. 1999) (mandamus relief in venue challenges)
Ex parte Walter Indus., Inc., 879 So.2d 547 (Ala. 2003) (location of events vs. location of injury for venue)
Ex parte Overstreet, 748 So.2d 194 (Ala. 1999) (proper venue determination at commencement)
Ex parte Starr, 419 So.2d 222 (Ala. 1982) (timeliness of venue objections)
Ex parte Movie Gallery, 31 So.3d 104 (Ala. 2009) (timeliness of filing venue motions when answer delayed)
Ex parte Michelin North America, Inc., 56 So.3d 604 (Ala. 2010) (Rule 82(d) timeliness when venue improper at commencement)
Ex parte Kane, 989 So.2d 509 (Ala. 2008) (Rule 12(h) waivers and venue defenses)
Ex parte Children's Hosp. of Alabama, 931 So.2d 1 (Ala. 2005) (mandamus standard and venue review scope)