Case Title: Griffin v. Bentley

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1101031

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2011-09-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
The action filed in the Montgomery Circuit Court named
1
as a defendant Bob Riley, then governor of the State of
Alabama.  While this action was pending in the circuit court,
Robert Bentley was elected governor and was automatically
substituted as the defendant.  See Rule 25(d), Ala.R.Civ.P.
REL: 09/16/2011
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2011
_________________________
1101031 and 1101033
_________________________
Ex parte Ashley Rich, District Attorney of Mobile County
and 
Ex parte State of Alabama
PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re:  Jesse Griffin et al.
v.
Robert Bentley  et al.)
1
(Montgomery Circuit Court, CV-10-900248)
1101031 and 1101033
Counsel for the State sought dismissal of the Montgomery
2
action, asserting, among other grounds, that the property was
subject to a condemnation action in the Mobile Circuit Court;
although not a party to the Montgomery action, a Mobile County
deputy district attorney appeared at the proceedings in the
Montgomery action to argue for dismissal of the Montgomery
action as well. 
2
MAIN, Justice.
Ashley Rich, district attorney of Mobile County, and the
State of Alabama ("the State") have filed separate petitions
for a writ of mandamus directed to the Montgomery Circuit
Court in an inverse-condemnation action filed by Jesse Griffin
and others ("Griffin")in the Montgomery Circuit Court ("the
Montgomery action").  Griffin filed the Montgomery action
seeking compensation for property, namely electronic "bingo"
machines 
and 
related 
equipment 
and 
money, 
previously
confiscated by the State from Griffin's facility in Mobile
County.   Citing Tyson v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc.,
2
43 So. 3d 587 (Ala. 2010), Rich and the State each argue that
the Montgomery Circuit Court is without subject-matter
jurisdiction 
to 
interfere 
with the executive branch's
enforcement of the criminal law.  The State further argues
that the Montgomery Circuit Court is without subject-matter
jurisdiction based on principles of sovereign immunity.  We
1101031 and 1101033
A number of cases related to the legality of electronic
3
gaming machines and "charitable electronic bingo" have been
progressing though the court system in Alabama.  For a
detailed discussion of the recent history of that subject,
including the Task Force, see Tyson v. Jones, 60 So. 3d 831
(Ala. 2010), and Ex parte State (In re Riley v. Cornerstone
Community Outreach, Inc.), 57 So. 3d 704 (Ala. 2010).
3
consolidated the petitions for the purpose of writing one
opinion.  We grant the petitions and issue the writs.
Factual Background and Procedural History
On February 25, 2010, Griffin opened and operated a
facility in Chickasaw, in Mobile County, containing 25
electronic devices Griffin promoted as lawful charitable bingo
machines.  That same day, members of the Governor's Task Force
on Illegal Gambling ("the Task Force"), established by then
Governor Bob Riley, seized the 25 machines, as well as other
items, from the facility.   The machines were transported to
3
a state warehouse in Montgomery County to be stored
temporarily.
On March 1, 2010, Griffin filed her inverse-condemnation
action in the Montgomery Circuit Court, seeking compensation
for the machines and other property she says was confiscated
in Mobile County pursuant to the seizure by the Task Force.
At some point after Griffin filed the Montgomery action,  the
1101031 and 1101033
4
machines were transported by the executive branch back to
Mobile County to be stored at a facility there.  On March 18,
2010, the Mobile County district attorney filed a forfeiture
action in the Mobile Circuit Court ("the Mobile action").  The
defending parties in the Montgomery action and in the Mobile
action sought dismissal or transfer of the plaintiffs'
respective claims for lack of jurisdiction, asserting in each
case that the complaint in their respective action was
superior to the complaint in the other.
At a status conference held in the Montgomery action, the
deputy legal advisor for the Governor of Alabama, the special
prosecutor then in charge of the Task Force, and an assistant
district attorney from the Mobile County district attorney's
office who was also assigned to the Task Force presented
argument that the Montgomery action was due to be transferred
to the Mobile Circuit Court or dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction, and Griffin's counsel argued to the contrary.
After receiving supplemental briefs from the parties and
a number of motions from Griffin, the Montgomery Circuit Court
conducted a hearing on March 14, 2011.  At that hearing, the
Montgomery Circuit Court, after confirming with the governor's
1101031 and 1101033
5
representative at the hearing that the electronic-bingo
machines had been brought to Montgomery County after they were
removed from Griffin's facility by the Task Force and then had
been transported back to Mobile County, began instructing the
defendants in the Montgomery action to bring the machines back
to Montgomery County for further proceedings, notably for an
evidentiary hearing to test the legality of the machines.  The
following exchange occurred:
"MR. 
REAGAN 
[deputy 
attorney 
general
representing 
the defendants in the Montgomery
action]: Your Honor, if I may speak to that.  We
believe that the Court here lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.
"THE 
COURT: 
And 
y'all 
can't 
defeat 
my
jurisdiction by taking matters outside of what's
rightly before the Court.  See, this matter is
rightly before the Court.  You should have gotten my
permission, all right, to have the machines moved
back to Mobile County.  Because at the time
[Griffin] filed the lawsuit, I had jurisdiction over
the --
"MR. REAGAN: Your Honor, we believe that --
"THE COURT: Now, you can believe it or not.
Now, I can show you better than I can tell you.
"MR. REAGAN: I understand, Your Honor.  The --
may I ask Your Honor if, do you intend to have an
evidentiary hearing?
1101031 and 1101033
6
"THE COURT: When the machines get back up here.
When they're going to get back up here?  I'll give
y'all ten days to get them back up here.
"MR. REAGAN: But, Your Honor, we believe you
don't have subject matter jurisdiction to have --
"THE COURT: I had it and you can't defeat it.
"MR. 
NEIMAN 
[deputy 
attorney 
general
representing 
the defendants in the Montgomery
action]: Your Honor, to be clear.  Our subject
matter jurisdiction argument doesn't depend on where
the machines were --
"THE COURT: But I'm -- I'm not going to even --
if I don't have subject matter jurisdiction, I can't
even rule on your motion, can I?
"MR. NEIMAN: Well, you can rule on our motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
"THE COURT: No. Get the machines back up here
and I'll hear your motion.
"MR. NEIMAN: But -- I mean, the problem, Your
Honor, is that the supreme court in the Tyson v.
Macon County Greyhound Park[, 43 So. 3d 587 (Ala.
2010),] case held that a court cannot exercise civil
jurisdiction to issue the sort of declaratory --
"THE COURT: But you brought -- no, no, no.  You
brought the machines up here.
"MR. NEIMAN: But --
"THE COURT: Now, if you had left -- listen to
me, now.
"MR. NEIMAN: Yes, Your Honor.
1101031 and 1101033
7
"THE COURT: If you had left them in Mobile
County and you filed this lawsuit, I would have
agreed with you, but you brought them up here,
brought them into this jurisdiction.  And you could
not take them out like you did.  Okay?
"MR. JONES [Griffin's counsel]: Your Honor, can
I make one distinction in what he just said? [It]
[i]s that [the] Macon County case was a preseizure
case where the court said you cannot issue an
injunction to keep somebody from seizing something.
That's why we went ahead and opened it and let them
seize them so that you could have jurisdiction.
"THE COURT: Well, y'all brought them up here to
the jurisdiction.
"MS. TIERNEY [Mobile County deputy district
attorney]: Judge, I'd like to say something on the
jurisdiction if I may.
"THE COURT: No.  We're not going to say anything
about jurisdiction until y'all get the machines back
up here.
"MS. TIERNEY: But the Court of Mobile County has
jurisdiction of those games.
"THE COURT: No, ma'am.
"MS. TIERNEY: Under our --
"THE COURT: I'll hold one, two, three in
contempt this morning.  And if you think I'm
playing, you need to ask somebody.  Now, do you want
me to have a contempt proceeding, or do y'all want
to get the machines back up here?
"Sheriff, get me -- I need two more deputies.
1101031 and 1101033
8
"MR. NEIMAN: We have no desire to be held in
contempt and we will follow whatever order the Court
issues here.  I -- I make that clear.  Your Honor.
"THE COURT: Well, I need one more deputy.  I
think you can handle one and leave the female for
her.
"MR. REAGAN: Your Honor, I have no intentions of
violating any order you issue whatsoever.
"MS. TIERNEY: I do not intend to violate any
court orders, Judge.
"THE COURT: All right.  Now, y'all get the
machines back up here.  I'll entertain your
argument.
"MR. REAGAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
"THE COURT: I'm not going to let anybody -- you
can tell the Governor, the chief justice, district
attorney for Mobile County -- I'm not going to let
anybody run roughshod over me.
"MR. NEIMAN: That's never been anyone's intent
in this case, Your Honor.  I feel comfortable making
that representation to the Court.
"THE COURT: And I do think I've got the
authority to hold the Governor in contempt if we
need to go there.  Now, get the machines back up
here.  How many is it?
"MR. JONES: It's twenty-five.  For the purposes
of demonstration here, I think we only need three.
"THE COURT: Well, I need the machines back up
here.  I'll make whatever rulings I need to make on
the matter.  And it may include the case going back
down to Mobile.  Okay?  There's such a thing called
rule of law."
1101031 and 1101033
9
(Rich's petition, Ex. 15, pp. 11-15.)  Later in the hearing
the circuit court instructed Griffin's counsel not to "quibble
over semantics," in response to which Griffin's counsel
apologized to the court and stated: "Too many deputies in here
for me not to apologize."  (Rich's petition, Ex. 15, pp. 18,
19.)  The Mobile County deputy district attorney then asked to
be allowed to explain for the record that the only reason the
electronic-bingo machines had been brought to Montgomery
County was that the seizure of the machines occurred late at
night and the closest available warehouse in which to
temporarily store the machines was in Montgomery County.  She
and the circuit court then discussed the fact that Griffin had
filed the Montgomery action while the machines were in
Montgomery, and the following exchange occurred:
"THE COURT: Hold on.
"MS. TIERNEY: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: You think the Mobile [district
attorney] will come and get you out of jail?
"MS. TIERNEY: Well, I don't expect to go to
jail,  Judge.  I will obey your orders --
"THE COURT: Well, if you keep on, now.  You
might be surprised.
1101031 and 1101033
10
"MR. NEIMAN: Your Honor, I -- the only -- the
only point --
"THE COURT: Listen.  The only thing I'm saying
is, let's get the machines back up here.  I'll hear
your arguments.
"MR. NEIMAN: Understood, Your Honor.
"THE COURT: I may agree with your argument.  I
may not agree, but I want the machines up here.
"MR. NEIMAN: We just want you to understand
nobody has been trying to run roughshod over
anybody.
"THE COURT: Well, I feel like y'all been doing
that over me, though.
"MR. NEIMAN: Well, that's -- that's not been
anybody's intent,  Your Honor.  And I just want to
assure the Court of that.
"MS. TIERNEY: And so far, Judge, we've complied
with all your orders.
"MR. NEIMAN: And we'll continue to do so.  Thank you.
"THE COURT: That's why you're not in jail.
"MS. TIERNEY: Thank you, sir.
"THE COURT: As long as you do that -- as long as
you do that, you'll be all right.  But just get them
back here.  Y'all may have to take them back to
Mobile.  I don't know, but I don't like the fact
that nobody has asked me whether or not the machines
should go back to Mobile."
(Rich's petition, Ex. 15, pp. 20-22.)  After additional
discussion, the following exchange occurred:
1101031 and 1101033
11
"THE COURT; And I just don't like the fact what
y'all did. I don't know if it was you.  Y'all look
like a new set of lawyers.
"MR. JONES: They are.
"THE COURT: Okay.
"MR. REAGAN: Judge, we're from the Attorney
General's office and we've been asked by Governor
Bentley to represent him in this matter.
"THE COURT: All right.  But I'm just saying I
had another set down here that I pretty much shaped
and molded, you know. And they wouldn't dare do
anything without asking the judge.
"MR. REAGAN: Yes, Your Honor.
"THE COURT: So I guess are -- y'all private
lawyers or --
"MR. REAGAN: No, sir. We're both assistant
attorney generals.
"THE COURT: All right. Up there with Mr.
[Luther] Strange [the attorney general].
"MR. REAGAN: Yes.
"MR. NEIMAN: That's correct.
"THE COURT: Okay.  All right.  Well, y'all got
to get -- you know -- what y'all do before this?
"MR. REAGAN: I was Governor Riley's legal
advisor.  Your Honor.
"THE COURT: Well, you know how I am.
"MR. REAGAN: I do. I do. Judge.
1101031 and 1101033
12
"(Off-the-record discussion held.)
"MR. NEIMAN: I was in the private practice in
Birmingham, Your Honor.
"THE COURT: Oh, no wonder.
"MR. JONES: Bradley, Arant.
"THE COURT: Got a Birmingham and Mobile lawyer."
(Rich's petition, Ex. 15, pp. 23-24.)  The Montgomery Circuit
Court again orally instructed the defendants to bring the
machines back to Montgomery County within 10 days, and the
hearing adjourned.  The Montgomery Circuit Court scheduled
another hearing for March 28, 2011.
Rich filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with this
Court, which this Court dismissed on the basis that the
Montgomery Circuit Court had not entered an order directing
that the machines be brought to Montgomery County.  Ex parte
Rich (In re Griffin v. Bentley) (No. 1100702, May 18, 2011).
On June 7, 2011, the Montgomery Circuit Court entered a
written order, stating, in pertinent part:
"Accordingly, this Court hereby orders the
Defendants to produce the electronic bingo machines,
computer server, any monies seized, and all other
seized property to this Court at the Montgomery
County Courthouse within 10 days of this Order. This
case is set for evidentiary hearing on the legality
of the machines on Monday, July 11, 2011 at 9:00
1101031 and 1101033
Griffin filed an answer and brief; the Montgomery Circuit
4
Court judge did not favor us with an answer or brief.
13
a.m. in Courtroom 4A of the Montgomery County
Courthouse.
"Further, [Griffin] and Defendant[s] and their
respective expert witnesses shall have access to the
machines and server during normal business hours of
the Courthouse for preparation for trial.
"Further, [Griffin] is instructed to set up the
machines in the Montgomery County Courthouse, at a
location to be determined by the Court, to provide
a live demonstration of the machines to the Court.
"Further, the cash seized and in the possession
of the Defendants shall be deposited with the
Circuit Clerk of Montgomery County and shall be held
in the Clerk's account pending final outcome of this
matter."
(Rich's petition, Ex. 18.)
Rich and the State then filed the petitions for a writ of
mandamus now before this Court.  This Court issued an order
staying the proceedings in the Montgomery action and ordered
Griffin 
and 
the 
Montgomery 
Circuit 
Court 
judge, 
as
respondents, to file answers and briefs.4
Standard of Review
"'"Mandamus is a drastic and
extraordinary writ, to be issued
only where there is (1) a clear
legal right in the petitioner to
the 
order 
sought; 
(2) 
an
imperative 
duty 
upon 
the
1101031 and 1101033
Because of our disposition of this issue, we need not
5
address the State's additional arguments regarding sovereign
immunity.
14
r e s p o n d e n t  
t o  
p e r f o r m ,
accompanied by a refusal to do
so; (3) the lack of another
adequate remedy; and (4) properly
invoked 
jurisdiction 
of 
the
court."'
"Ex parte Perfection Siding, Inc., 882 So. 2d 307,
309-10 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Ex parte Integon Corp.,
672 So. 2d 497, 499 (Ala. 1995)). 'The question of
subject-matter jurisdiction is reviewable by a
petition for a writ of mandamus.'  Ex parte Liberty
Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 888 So. 2d 478, 480 (Ala.
2003)."
Ex parte Cincinnati Ins. Co., 51 So. 3d 298, 302 (Ala. 2010).
Analysis
In their respective mandamus petitions, Rich and the
State each argue that the Montgomery Circuit Court is without
subject-matter jurisdiction to interfere with the executive
branch's enforcement of the criminal law by civil action.5
Thus, they argue that the Montgomery action is due to be
dismissed.
In her answer to the petitions, Griffin asserts that
Tyson is not controlling in this case because the facts are
different 
and 
that 
the 
Montgomery 
Circuit 
Court 
has
jurisdiction over her action. According to Griffin, the
1101031 and 1101033
15
forfeiture action subsequently filed by the Mobile County
district attorney in the Mobile Circuit Court was contrary to
the duel-litigation statute, § 6-5-440, Ala. Code 1975, and to
the compulsory-counterclaim rule, Rule 13(a), Ala.R.Civ.P.
As Deputy District Attorney Tierney and counsel for the
State repeatedly attempted to argue to the Montgomery Circuit
Court, "the trial court 'lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to
interfere with a criminal proceeding by civil action.'"
Tyson, 43 So. 3d at 591 (quoting an order entered by this
Court in Barber v. Houston County Econ. Dev. Ass'n (No.
1090444, January 15, 2010)).  Further, this Court implicitly
recognized in Tyson that a forfeiture action filed pursuant to
§ 13A-12-30, Ala. Code 1975, was logically an extension of law
enforcement's efforts to enforce the criminal laws of the
State of Alabama.
The seizure of the machines and other evidence by the
Task Force took place in Mobile County pursuant to an
investigation into illegal gambling in that county.  The
facility where the machines were operating was in Mobile
County.  That the machines were temporarily stored in
Montgomery County after they were seized is immaterial in this
1101031 and 1101033
Further, the Montgomery Circuit Court did not need the
6
machines or other evidence seized to ascertain whether it had
subject-matter jurisdiction over the action filed in the
Montgomery Circuit Court.
16
case.  Similarly, the fact that Griffin won a proverbial race
to the courthouse steps to file her civil action in the
Montgomery Circuit Court before the Mobile County district
attorney brought the forfeiture action in the Mobile Circuit
Court does not obliterate the fact that the search and seizure
took place as part of a criminal investigation into illegal
gambling in Mobile County.
The 
Montgomery 
action 
constituted 
an 
attempted
interference with the criminal action in Mobile County by,
including, but not limited to, ordering that the electronic-
bingo machines and other evidence be brought back to
Montgomery County so that the Montgomery Circuit Court could
hold a hearing to adjudicate the legality of the very machines
made the subject of the criminal proceedings and by
threatening the attorneys for the executive branch with arrest
for contempt when they attempted to explain to the Montgomery
Circuit Court that it was without subject-matter jurisdiction
to order the return of the machines to Montgomery County.6
1101031 and 1101033
17
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that neither the fact
that the electronic-bingo machines were brought to Montgomery
County to be temporarily stored nor the fact that Griffin
filed the Montgomery action before the Mobile County district
attorney filed the Mobile action erases the fact that the
events in this case arose from a criminal action initiated by
the investigation of the facility and the resulting seizure of
the machines and other evidence.  Thus, Griffin's reliance on
the duel-litigation statute and the compulsory-counterclaim
rule is misplaced.  We grant Rich's and the State's petitions
for a writ of mandamus, and we direct the Montgomery Circuit
Court to vacate its June 7, 2011, order.  We further direct
the trial court to issue an order dismissing the Montgomery
action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
1101031--PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
1101033–-PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Woodall, Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Shaw, and Wise,
JJ., concur.  
Malone, C.J., recuses himself.