148 So. 3d 1060
Ala.2014Background
- Sterne Agee acted as the Washington underwriter/seller of securities under WA law.
- In 2004, U.S. Bank sued Sterne Agee in Washington for violations of the Washington State Securities Act; Sterne Agee lost later in WA proceedings.
- After multiple trials and appeals, Sterne Agee obtained judgments in its favor in the WA action by 2009; Ninth Circuit affirmed in 2011.
- On July 1, 2011, Sterne Agee sued U.S. Bank in Jefferson Circuit Court for malicious prosecution arising from the WA lawsuit.
- The case was removed to the Northern District of Alabama, remanded back to Jefferson Circuit Court; U.S. Bank moved to dismiss on conflict-of-laws grounds (Jan 2013).
- The circuit court denied dismissal (Apr 11, 2013); no permissive-appeal certification was granted; U.S. Bank petitioned for mandamus (May 2013).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is proper to review denial of a conflict-of-laws dismissal | U.S. Bank seeks mandamus as唯一 remedy to review denial | Denial involves discretionary interlocutory ruling; mandamus generally inappropriate | Mandamus review is proper where conflict-of-laws denial blocks relief |
| What state's law governs the malicious-prosecution claim under lex loci delicti | Injury occurred where the defense of the Washington action occurred (Washington). | Injury occurred where financial impact was felt (Alabama). | Washington law governs the malicious-prosecution claim |
| Whether injury location doctrine for malicious-prosecution aligns with Alabama's lex loci delicti approach | Follow financial-harm theory to Alabama-based injury | Follow traditional lex loci delicti—injury in WA due to WA suit termination | Injury occurs where the antecedent suit was terminated in favor of the plaintiff; WA governs |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Exxon Corp., 725 So.2d 930 (Ala. 1998) (conflict-of-laws and mandamus relevance; class-action context)
- Batey & Sanders, Inc. v. Dodd, 755 So.2d 581 (Ala.Civ.App. 1999) (mandamus in forum/venue-related conflict analysis)
- Ex parte DaimlerChrysler Corp., 952 So.2d 1082 (Ala.2006) (mandamus exceptions to dismissal/summary-judgment review)
- Ex parte Liberty National Life Insurance Co., 825 So.2d 758 (Ala.2002) (permissive-review discretion and mandamus scope)
- Ex parte Exxon Corp. (conflict-of-laws context in class action):, 725 So.2d 930 (Ala.1998) (mandamus to review class-action certification; framework for review)