109 So. 3d 1114
Ala.2012Background
- Tinney sued EAMC in Randolph Circuit Court over a hospital lien dispute tied to Benefield's settlement; Progressive paid $3,361 to EAMC and Tinney.
- EAMC filed a hospital lien for $3,361 against Benefield's recovery; the lien was paid from the settlement proceeds.
- Tinney alleged EAMC failed to negotiate the lien check or agree on a fee division; the underlying claim accrued Oct 14, 2011.
- EAMC moved to transfer venue to Lee County (its principal office) on Nov 18, 2011, citing § 6-3-7 and lack of Randolph activities.
- Affidavits from EAMC officials stated its principal office is in Lee County and that all actions and communications occurred there; Tinney did not respond.
- The trial court denied the motion to transfer (Jun 6, 2012); EAMC petitioned for mandamus, arguing Randolph was improper for venue; standard of mandamus review and lack of adequate remedy were invoked.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Randolph is proper under § 6-3-7(a)(1) | Tinney, as plaintiff, argues Randolph is proper. | EAMC contends events occurred in Lee County; no substantial events in Randolph. | Randolph not proper under § 6-3-7(a)(1). |
| Whether Randolph is proper under § 6-3-7(a)(2) | Tinney asserts no basis. | EAMC's principal office in Lee County makes Randolph improper. | Randolph not proper under § 6-3-7(a)(2). |
| Whether Randolph is proper under § 6-3-7(a)(3) | Tinney argues EAMC does business by agent in Randolph County via clinic and physician. | Andrus and related affidavits show no agency in Randolph; Tinney failed to prove agency. | Randolph not proper under § 6-3-7(a)(3) based on lack of proven agency in Randolph. |
| Whether § 6-3-7(a)(4) applies as catch-all | Not necessary; other subsections should apply. | Catch-all only when others fail. | Not applicable; other subsections already fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Thomasville Feed & Seed, Inc., 74 So.3d 940 (Ala.2011) (defined events/omissions standard for venue in corporate actions)
- Ex parte Volvo Trucks North America, Inc., 954 So.2d 583 (Ala.2006) (interpretation of events causing the claim)
- Ex parte Suzuki Mobile, Inc., 940 So.2d 1007 (Ala.2006) (venue related to corporate defendants)
- Ex parte Pikeville Country Club, 844 So.2d 1186 (Ala.2002) (agency by defendant for venue purposes)
- Ex parte Citizens State Bank, 989 So.2d 507 (Ala.2008) (burden-shifting on venue proof)