Ex parte Full Circle Distribution, L.L.C.
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Lyons, Houston, See, Brown, Harwood, Woodall, Stuart, Johnstone
LYONS, Justice.
Full Circle Distribution, L.L.C., the plaintiff in an action pending in the Etowah Circuit Court, petitions for a writ of mandamus directing Judge William C. Cardwell to set aside his order granting the motion filed by the defendants in the action, SECO Aviation, Inc., and Anthony Aviation Center, Inc., for relief from a default judgment. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition.
I. Facts and Procedural History
On December 22, 1997, Full Circle and SECO Aviation, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Georgia (“SECO(GA)“), entered into a consignment agreement pursuant to which SECO(GA) agreed to act as a distributer for the sale of 14 helicopter-fuel-dump pumps owned by Full Circle. According to the consignment agreement, Full Circle was to be paid 30 percent of the revenues from the sale of the pumps. Approximately two years later, on August 10, 1999, SECO(GA) sold many of its assets, including the fuel-dump pumps.
On February 27, 2002, Full Circle sued SECO Aviation, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania (“SECO(PA)“), and Anthony Aviation Center, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Florida (“AAC“), in the Etowah Circuit Court, alleging breach of contract and conversion. Full Circle contended that AAC purchased the 14 fuel-dump pumps from SECO(GA), but that SECO(GA) never paid Full Circle a commission on the sale of the fuel-dump pumps as required under the consignment agreement. Full Circle served the summons
On November 19, 2002, the default judgment was filed with the circuit court in Broward County, Florida, for domestication in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. At this time, SECO(PA) and AAC were provided with notice by certified mail that the default judgment was being domesticated in Florida. Nevertheless, SECO(PA) and AAC failed to respond or to challenge the default judgment within 30 days of this notice, and the default judgment was domesticated in Florida on January 9, 2003. On April 18, 2003, a writ of garnishment was issued by the Broward Circuit Court. Then, on April 23, 2003, SECO(PA) and AAC filed an emergency motion in the Broward Circuit Court to dissolve the writ of garnishment; they argued that the Alabama judgment made the basis of the garnishment action was void because the Etowah Circuit Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them and because, they argue, Full Circle had not properly served the summons and complaint on either of the defendants.
Immediately after filing the emergency motion, SECO(PA) and AAC filed with the Etowah Circuit Court a motion for relief from the default judgment pursuant to
II. Standard of Review
The standard of review on appeal from an order granting relief under
III. Analysis
Mandamus is an extraordinary writ and will be issued “only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought, (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied
A. Rule 60(b)(4) and the Reasonable-Time Limitation
Full Circle‘s initial argument is that SECO(PA) and AAC‘s motion for relief from the default judgment was not filed within a reasonable time, as required by
In 1973, Alabama adopted the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, which were modeled after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Federal Rules, like the Alabama Rules, provide that a
In addition to federal authority, we note that several states have applied a similar rationale and have held that there is no limit on the time to begin a proceeding to set aside a void judgment. See, e.g., Allred v. Tucci, 85 N.C.App. 138, 354 S.E.2d 291 (1987); Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc., 489 So.2d 758 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986); Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288 (Utah 1986); Reynaud v. Koszela, 473 A.2d 281 (R.I.1984); and Barkley v. Toland, 7 Kan.App.2d 625, 646 P.2d 1124 (1982).
Finally, we recognize that before the adoption of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, a party seeking to vacate a void judgment could file a motion for relief “at any time subsequent to its rendition.” Sweeney v. Tritsch, 151 Ala. 242, 245, 44 So. 184, 185 (1907). The committee that drafted the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure stated in the Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption that it has always been the law in Alabama that a void judgment could be vacated at any time and cited Sweeney v. Tritsch as authority for this proposition. The rationale for being able to vacate a void judgment at any time is that “a void court order is a complete nullity.” Hodges v. Archer, 286 Ala. 457, 459, 241 So.2d 324, 326 (1970). As a nullity, a void judgment has no effect and is subject to attack at any time. Id. Even after the adoption of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, the rationale of Hodges and its progeny is still persuasive, and as noted above, many jurisdictions with procedural rules similar to
B. Personal Jurisdiction
Full Circle also argues that if we conclude that the motion for relief was timely then the actions of SECO(PA) and AAC were sufficient to establish minimum contacts with Alabama so as to warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the parties by the Etowah Circuit Court. SECO(PA) and AAC argue in response that neither corporation had any contact with Alabama whatsoever and that neither was a party to the consignment agreement between Full Circle and SECO(GA).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits a forum state to subject a nonresident defendant to jurisdiction in its courts only when that defendant has had “minimum contacts” with the forum state. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). The critical question with regard to the nonresident defendant‘s contacts is whether the contacts are such that the nonresident defendant “`should reasonably anticipate being haled into court‘” in the forum state. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)(quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)). The sufficiency of a party‘s contacts is assessed based on whether the contacts are general or specific.
“General contacts, which give rise to general personal jurisdiction, consist of the defendant‘s contacts with the forum state that are unrelated to the cause of action and that are both `continuous and systematic.’ Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 9, 415, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984).... Specific contacts, which give rise to specific personal jurisdiction, consist of the defendant‘s contacts with the forum state that are related to the cause of action. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-75, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Although the related contacts need not be continuous and systematic, they must rise to such a level as to cause the defendant to anticipate being haled into court in the forum state. Id.”
Ex parte Phase III Constr., Inc., 723 So.2d 1263, 1266 (Ala.1998) (Lyons, J., concurring in the result). Furthermore, this Court has held that specific contacts, which give rise to specific in personam jurisdiction, exist when there is “a clear, firm nexus between the acts of the defendant and the consequences complained of.” Duke v. Young, 496 So.2d 37, 39 (Ala.1986). See also Ex parte Kamilewicz, 700 So.2d 340, 345 n. 2 (Ala.1997).
In the case of either general in personam jurisdiction or specific in personam jurisdiction, “[t]he `substantial connection’ between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State.” Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102, 112, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987). This purposeful-availment requirement assures that a defendant will not be haled into court in a foreign jurisdiction as a result of “`the unilateral activity of another person or a third person.‘” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 417, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984)).
“Only after such minimum contacts have been established does a court then consider those contacts in the light of other factors — such as the burden on the defendant of litigating in the forum state and the forum state‘s interest in adjudicating the dispute, Burger King [Corp. v. Rudzewicz], 471 U.S. [462] at 476-77, 105 S.Ct. 2174[, 85 L.Ed.2d 528] [(1985)] — to determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant comports with `“traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.“’ Brooks v. Inlow, 453 So.2d 349, 351 (Ala.1984), quoting International Shoe [Co. v. Washington], 326 U.S. [310] at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154 [(1945)]. See also Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476-77, 105 S.Ct. 2174.”
Elliott v. Van Kleef, 830 So.2d 726, 730-31 (Ala.2002); see also Worthy v. Cyberworks Techs., Inc., 835 So.2d 972 (2002).
Thus, the first step in our analysis is to determine whether SECO(PA) or AAC has the requisite “minimum contacts” with this State to support the trial court‘s exercise of in personam jurisdiction over them. We find no evidence indicating that SECO(PA) or AAC had sufficient connections with Alabama to meet the requirements for either specific or general in personam jurisdiction.
The claims asserted in this action arose out of the contractual relationship between Full Circle and SECO(GA). SECO(PA), the SECO corporation Full Circle served with its complaint, was not a party to the consignment agreement that is the basis of this action. As stated previously, SECO(PA) is not the same entity as SECO(GA), nor is there any evidence before this Court to indicate that the two corporations are legally connected in any respect. We also find no contacts SECO(PA) had with Alabama that would constitute general contacts with the State.
Full Circle concedes in its brief to this Court that AAC did not have any physical contacts with Alabama, but it argues that AAC‘s alleged tortious and intentional actions were directed toward Full Circle, an Alabama entity. Full Circle specifically argues that because AAC is allegedly in possession of the fuel-dump pumps that are the subject of the consignment agreement and has refused to return that property to Full Circle when requested, AAC could reasonably anticipate being haled into an Alabama court to defend its actions. While this argument may assert a potential conversion claim, the facts still do not establish personal jurisdiction over AAC. Full Circle has presented no evidence of any contacts AAC had with Alabama. There is also nothing before this Court to show that AAC‘s alleged purchase of the assets of SECO(GA) was “purposefully directed toward the forum State.” Asahi Metal Indus. Co., 480 U.S. at 112, 107 S.Ct. 1026. Moreover, Full Circle has not shown that AAC had any general contacts with Alabama.
Since neither SECO(PA) nor AAC has the requisite “minimum contacts” with this State to permit Alabama courts to exercise in personam jurisdiction over them, assertion of such jurisdiction over the parties would be inconsistent with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154. Therefore, the default judgment is void.
IV. Conclusion
The default judgment in favor of Full Circle is void, and the trial court, therefore, did not err in granting the
PETITION DENIED.
HOUSTON, SEE, BROWN, HARWOOD, WOODALL, and STUART, JJ., concur.
JOHNSTONE, J., dissents.
JOHNSTONE, Justice (dissenting).
I would think that the case, like the one now before us, of a defendant which has been sued and has been validly served with process and thereby actually notified of the suit would logically and especially justify the reasonable-time requirement of
The defendants in the case before us do not deny that they were in fact named as defendants in the plaintiff‘s suit or that they were served with process by certified mail or that they were thereby actually notified of the plaintiff‘s suit. While one of the defendants contends that the plaintiff meant to sue another entity with a similar name, neither defendant denies that the plaintiff actually did sue each one of these very defendants and did obtain a judgment against each as named in the suit. The wrong-entity contention would be a defense to the merits of the suit not now before us.
The reasonable-time requirement of
Therefore, I respectfully submit that this Court should not abolish the reasonable-time requirement of