P.B. Surf, Ltd. v. Savage
2013 Ala. LEXIS 20
Ala.2013Background
- Alamo Title Company, a Texas corporation, is sued in Alabama federal/state court over disbursement of San Paloma sale proceeds.
- Plaintiff P.B. Surf alleges conspiracy and various torts against Alamo as escrow agent after funds were wired to an Alabama account.
- Alamo moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, attaching a comprehensive affidavit by its counsel.
- Amended complaint alleges a conspiracy involving Sav age and Noltes with actions to divert funds; venue asserted in Jefferson County, Alabama.
- Trial court denied Alamo’s motion to dismiss, finding minimum contacts and noting Alamo’s participation in the dispute; Alamo sought mandamus relief with this petition.
- This Court grants the mandamus petition and directs dismissal of P.B. Surf’s claims against Alamo for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Alabama court has specific personal jurisdiction over Alamo | P.B. Surf asserts Alabama contacts arise from conspiracy and wiring of funds | Alamo argues no purposeful availment and no connections tied to Alabama | Yes, not established; no sufficient minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction |
| Whether mandamus is proper where adequate remedies exist | Mandamus is appropriate to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction | There were alternative remedies (permissive appeal or continued litigation) | Mandamus granted; no adequate remedy otherwise |
| Whether Alamo’s alleged contacts satisfy the due-process standard | Alamo’s wiring to an Alabama account was tied to the dispute and could support jurisdiction | Contacts were attenuated and not purposeful availment | No sufficient purposeful contacts to support specific jurisdiction |
| Whether general jurisdiction exists over Alamo | Alamo’s Alabama contacts show continuous and systematic presence | Alamo has no Alabama offices, employees, or ongoing business in Alabama | General jurisdiction not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and minimum contacts standard for specific jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (foreseeability and nexus for jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts doctrine foundational to jurisdiction)
- Ex parte Covington Pike Dodge, Inc., 904 So.2d 226 (Ala.2004) (confirms burden on plaintiff to show jurisdiction and use of affidavits to contradict defendants’ proof)
- Ex parte McNeese Title, LLC, 82 So.3d 670 (Ala.2011) (mandamus appropriate for lack of personal jurisdiction challenges)
- Ex parte Ex celsior Fin., Inc., 42 So.3d 96 (Ala.2010) (statements on burden and procedure in 12(b)(2) motions with affidavits)
- Ex parte United Ins. Cos., 936 So.2d 1049 (Ala.2006) (acknowledges continued litigation as an option but not as adequate mandamus substitute)
- Ex parte L.S.B., 800 So.2d 574 (Ala.2001) (adequacy of remedies test for mandamus—precludes only when adequate remedy exists)