74 So. 3d 940
Ala.2011Background
- Saulsberry, a Wilcox County cattle farmer, alleges fertilizer sold by Thomasville Feed caused grass and hay crop damage under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine (AEMLD).
- Thomasville Feed, located in Clarke County, challenged Wilcox County venue as improper and moved to transfer to Clarke County.
- Thomasville Feed defended with an affidavit stating its principal place of business and activities are in Clarke County and it has no Wilcox County agency.
- Saulsberry did not present evidence showing Thomasville Feed conducted business by agent in Wilcox County.
- The Wilcox Circuit Court denied the motion to transfer; Thomasville Feed seeks mandamus relief to compel transfer to Clarke County.
- The Court grants mandamus, holding Wilcox venue improper under Ala. Code 6-3-7(a)(2) and (a)(3), and that Clarke County is the proper venue under the AEMLD-related location of the events.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilcox County is proper under 6-3-7(a)(2) or (a)(3). | Saulsberry asserts Wilcox is proper because the grass damage occurred there. | Thomasville Feed maintains Clarke County is proper as its principal place of business and no Wilcox agency. | Wilcox improper under (a)(2) and (a)(3); transfer to Clarke appropriate. |
| Whether the real-property location can justify venue under 6-3-7(a)(1). | Saulsberry argues farm real property is the subject of the action. | Thomasville Feed argues the subject is the defective fertilizer sale, not Wilcox real property. | Real property not the subject; venue not proper under the real-property clause. |
| What governs the proper interpretation of “events or omissions giving rise to the claim” under 6-3-7(a)(1). | Saulsberry relies on the acts tied to sale of defective product. | Thomasville Feed relies on Volvo Trucks/Suzuki interpretation limiting to design/manufacture acts. | The Court grants mandamus using established interpretation (acts of defendant) but notes concurrence that interpretation may warrant change. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Volvo Trucks North America, Inc., 954 So.2d 583 (Ala.2006) (definition of events or omissions giving rise to the claim in § 6-3-7(a)(1))
- Ex parte Suzuki Mobile, Inc., 940 So.2d 1007 (Ala.2006) (expands interpretation of § 6-3-7(a)(1)")
- Ex parte Pikeville Country Club, 844 So.2d 1186 (Ala.2002) (venue analysis for corporate defendant under § 6-3-7(a)(1))
- Ex parte Siemag, Inc., 53 So.3d 974 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (catch-all venue provision relevance)
- Ex parte Citizens State Bank, 989 So.2d 507 (Ala.2008) (burden-shifting on venue proof)
- Ex parte Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc., 10 So.3d 536 (Ala.2008) (burden allocation in venue determinations)
- Ex parte Burr & Forman, LLP, 5 So.3d 557 (Ala.2008) (mandamus standards regarding improper venue rulings)
- Ex parte Ford Motor Co., 73 So.3d 597 (Ala.2011) (contemporary views on § 6-3-7(a)(1) interpretation (dissenting))