Case Title: Ex parte TD Bank US Holding Company

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1180998

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2020-05-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rel: May 29, 2020
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
OCTOBER TERM, 2019-2020
____________________
1180998
____________________
Ex parte TD Bank US Holding Company and TD Bank, National
Association
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: Dynamic Civil Solutions, Inc., and Bolaji Kukoyi
v.
ServisFirst Bank; A Prime Location, Inc.; Jessyca McKnight;
TD Bank US Holding Company; TD Bank, National Association;
Ozoria Global, Inc.; and Manuel Diaz Ozoria)
(Jefferson Circuit Court, CV-17-904639)
STEWART, Justice.
1180998
TD Bank, National Association, and TD Bank US Holding
Company1 (hereinafter referred to collectively as "TD Bank")
petition this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the
Jefferson Circuit Court ("the trial court") to dismiss claims
filed against them by Bolaji Kukoyi and Dynamic Civil
Solutions, Inc.2 (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the
plaintiffs"), on the basis of a lack of personal jurisdiction.
We grant the petition and issue the writ.
Facts and Procedural History
In January 2017, Kukoyi retained Jessyca McKnight, a
real-estate agent and broker employed with A Prime Location,
Inc., d/b/a A Prime Real Estate Location ("Prime"), to assist
him in purchasing a house. Kukoyi made an offer on a house,
the offer was accepted, and the closing was scheduled to take
place at attorney David Condon's office in Birmingham. Before
the closing date, McKnight and Prime received an e-mail
purportedly 
from 
Condon's 
paralegal instructing Kukoyi 
to 
wire
1According to the petitioners, TD Bank US Holding Company
is a holding company that does not provide banking services in
its own name.
2Dynamic Civil Solutions, Inc., is identified in the
plaintiffs' complaint 
as 
a 
domestic 
corporation doing 
business
in Alabama; Kukoyi is identified as its principal.
2
1180998
funds for the closing costs one week before the closing date
to an account at a TD Bank location in Florida. McKnight and
Prime forwarded the e-mail to Kukoyi. According to Kukoyi, he
questioned the instructions but was assured by McKnight and
Prime that wiring the funds was necessary for the closing to
go forward. 
On January 27, 2017, Kukoyi initiated a wire transfer in
the amount of $125,652.74 from an account he owned jointly
with 
Dynamic 
Civil 
Solutions 
with 
ServisFirst 
Bank
("ServisFirst") to the account at TD Bank as instructed in the
e-mail McKnight and Prime had forwarded to 
Kukoyi. Unbeknownst
to the plaintiffs, the account to which Kukoyi wired the funds
had been opened by a company known as Ozoria Global, Inc. 
According to 
the 
plaintiffs, Kukoyi contacted ServisFirst
on February 3, 2017, to determine whether the funds had been
transferred. At that time, ServisFirst discovered that the
wire transfer was fraudulent and had not been completely
processed. Kukoyi requested that ServisFirst put a stop-
payment on the wire transfer, and ServisFirst advised TD Bank
that the transfer had been fraudulent and requested that TD
Bank reverse the transfer. According to the plaintiffs, as of
3
1180998
February 3, 2017, the funds had not been credited to any
account at TD Bank. The plaintiffs asserted that the Ozoria
Global, Inc., account had been flagged by TD Bank for
suspicious activity and that, as a result, the funds had been
automatically placed on a hold.
On February 6, 2017, TD Bank forwarded ServisFirst a
wire-transfer charge 
and 
instructed 
ServisFirst 
to 
contact 
its
corporate security office. ServisFirst advised TD Bank's
corporate security department of what had occurred. According
to the plaintiffs, the funds were still on hold at that time.
At some point thereafter, however, TD Bank released the funds
to the Ozoria Global, Inc., account and stopped communicating
or cooperating with ServisFirst and refused to return the
funds. 
On November 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an action in
the trial court asserting various causes of action against TD
Bank and other defendants in relation to the wire transfer.
The 
plaintiffs 
thereafter 
amended 
their 
complaint three 
times.
On March 15, 2019, TD Bank filed a motion to dismiss the
claims against it based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. In
its motion, TD Bank argued that it was not subject to general
4
1180998
or specific personal jurisdiction. TD Bank asserted that its
main office was located in Delaware and that its principal
place of business was in New Jersey. TD Bank asserted that it
had no office, store, branch location, automatic-teller
machine, or other facility in the State of Alabama. TD Bank
also asserted that it had not directed any advertising or
marketing efforts to residents or businesses in Alabama. TD
Bank further asserted that any of the alleged activities made
the basis of the plaintiffs' complaint occurred out of state
because a Florida account received a wire transfer that would
have been processed through TD Bank's servers in Toronto,
Canada. TD Bank attached to its motion an affidavit of one of
its employees. 
It does not appear from the materials submitted to this
Court that the plaintiffs filed a response to TD Bank's motion
to dismiss. At the trial court's direction, however, both
sides submitted proposed orders. On August 1, 2019, the trial
court entered an order denying TD Bank's motion to dismiss. TD
Bank then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this
Court, and the trial court stayed the trial-court proceedings
5
1180998
pending this Court's resolution of TD Bank's mandamus
petition.  
Standard of Review
"A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy
which requires a showing of (a) a clear legal right
in the petitioner to the order sought, (b) an
imperative duty on the respondent to perform,
accompanied by a refusal to do so, (c) the lack of
another adequate remedy, and (d) the properly
invoked jurisdiction of the court. Ex parte Bruner,
749 So. 2d 437, 439 (Ala. 1999)."
Ex parte McInnis, 820 So. 2d 795, 798 (Ala. 2001).
"'[A] petition for a writ of mandamus
is the proper device by which to challenge
the denial of a motion to dismiss for lack
of in personam jurisdiction. See Ex parte
McInnis, 820 So. 2d 795 (Ala. 2001); Ex
parte Paul Maclean Land Servs., Inc., 613
So. 2d 1284, 1286 (Ala. 1993). "'An
appellate court considers de novo a trial
court's judgment on a party's motion to
dismiss 
for 
lack 
of 
personal
jurisdiction.'" Ex parte Lagrone, 839 So.
2d 620, 623 (Ala. 2002) (quoting Elliott v.
Van Kleef, 830 So. 2d 726, 729 (Ala.
2002)). Moreover, "[t]he plaintiff bears
the burden of proving the court's personal
jurisdiction over the defendant." Daynard
v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson &
Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42, 50 (1st Cir.
2002).'
"Ex parte Dill, Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings,
P.C., 866 So. 2d 519, 525 (Ala. 2003)."
6
1180998
Ex parte Covington Pike Dodge, Inc., 904 So. 2d 226, 229 (Ala.
2004).
Discussion
TD Bank argues that the trial court should have granted
its motion to dismiss because, it says, the trial court lacked
both general and specific personal jurisdiction over it.
"'"In considering a Rule 12(b)(2),
Ala. R. Civ. P., motion to dismiss for want
of personal jurisdiction, a court must
consider as true the allegations of the
plaintiff's complaint not controverted by
the defendant's affidavits, Robinson v.
Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d 253 (11th
Cir. 1996), and Cable/Home Communication
Corp. v. Network Productions, Inc., 902
F.2d 829 (11th Cir. 1990), and 'where the
plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's
affidavits conflict, the ... court must
construe 
all 
reasonable 
inferences 
in 
favor
of the plaintiff.' Robinson, 74 F.3d at 255
(quoting Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510,
1514 (11th Cir. 1990))."'
"Wenger Tree Serv. v. Royal Truck & Equip., Inc.,
853 So. 2d 888, 894 (Ala. 2002) (quoting Ex parte
McInnis, 820 So. 2d 795, 798 (Ala. 2001)). However,
if the defendant makes a prima facie evidentiary
showing that the Court has no personal jurisdiction,
'the plaintiff is then required to substantiate the
jurisdictional allegations in the complaint by
affidavits or other competent proof, and he may not
merely reiterate the factual allegations in the
complaint.' Mercantile Capital, LP v. Federal
Transtel, Inc., 193 F.Supp.2d 1243, 1247 (N.D. Ala.
2002)(citing Future Tech. Today, Inc. v. OSF
Healthcare Sys., 218 F.3d 1247, 1249 (11th Cir.
7
1180998
2000)). See also Hansen v. Neumueller GmbH, 163
F.R.D. 471, 474–75 (D. Del. 1995)('When a defendant
files a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 
12(b)(2), 
and 
supports 
that 
motion 
with
affidavits, plaintiff is required to controvert
those affidavits with his own affidavits or other
competent evidence in order to survive the motion.')
(citing Time Share Vacation Club v. Atlantic
Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61, 63 (3d Cir. 1984))."
Covington Pike Dodge, 904 So. 2d at 229-30.
Rule 4.2(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., allows Alabama courts to
exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants
"when the person or entity has such contacts with this state
that the prosecution of the action against the person or
entity in this state is not inconsistent with the constitution
of this state or the Constitution of the United States ...."
There are two types of personal jurisdiction -- general 
and specific. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of
California, San Francisco Cty., ___ U.S. ___, ___, 137 S. Ct.
1773, 1776 (2017). TD Bank argues that the plaintiffs failed
to demonstrate that TD Bank had general contacts such that it
was "at home" in Alabama, and the plaintiffs do not contend
that 
the 
trial 
court 
can 
properly 
exercise 
general
jurisdiction over TD Bank.3
3"For general jurisdiction, the 'paradigm forum' is an
'individual's domicile,' or, for corporations, 'an equivalent
place, one in which the corporation is fairly regarded as at
home.'" Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., ___ U.S. at ___, 137 S. Ct.
8
1180998
The specific-jurisdiction inquiry "focuses on 'the
relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the
litigation.'" Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770,
775 (1984)(quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204
(1977)). TD Bank argues that the plaintiffs failed to
demonstrate that it had sufficient minimum contacts with
Alabama to subject it to specific jurisdiction in Alabama. The
plaintiffs argue that TD Bank took numerous actions directed
toward the State of Alabama and the plaintiffs sufficient for
the trial court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction.
We must initially determine whether TD Bank made a prima
facie evidentiary showing in the trial court in support of its
motion to dismiss and, if so, whether the plaintiffs 
substantiated 
the 
jurisdictional 
allegations 
in 
their
complaint. See Ex parte Güdel AG, 183 So. 3d 147, 156 (Ala.
2015). In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that TD Bank
is a foreign entity that does business in Jefferson County.
The plaintiffs alleged that TD Bank "received a fraudulent
transfer of Plaintiff's funds from Defendant ServisFirst, but
refused to return said funds after being notified by
at 1776 (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v.
Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924 (2011)).
9
1180998
ServisFirst of the fraud." The plaintiffs further alleged that
the funds were wired to a TD Bank branch in Florida.
In support of its motion to dismiss, TD Bank submitted an
affidavit from an employee, JoAnn Leon, who testified that TD
Bank's main office was located in Delaware and that its
principal place of business was in New Jersey. Leon's
testimony further demonstrated that TD Bank had no office,
store, branch location, automatic-teller machine, or other
facility in Alabama. Leon further testified that TD Bank had
not directed any advertising or marketing efforts to 
residents
or businesses in Alabama. Leon also testified that TD Bank
processes incoming wire transfers through its servers in
Toronto, Canada. Through its evidentiary submission, TD Bank
made a prima facie showing that the trial court lacked
specific personal jurisdiction over it. The burden then
shifted 
to 
the 
plaintiffs 
to 
"substantiate 
[their]
jurisdictional allegations with affidavits or other competent
evidence." Covington Pike Dodge, 904 So. 2d at 232. See also
Ex parte Excelsior Fin., Inc., 42 So. 3d 96, 104 (Ala. 2010),
and Ex parte Güdel AG, 183 So. 3d at 156 (in which this Court
granted mandamus relief when the defendant's evidence in
support of its motion to dismiss "disproved the factual
10
1180998
allegations 
asserted 
in 
the 
[plaintiffs'] 
complaint 
that 
would
establish specific jurisdiction and constituted a prima facie
showing that no specific jurisdiction existed" and the
plaintiffs had "indisputably failed" to meet their burden of
substantiating 
"their 
jurisdictional 
allegations 
with
affidavits or other competent evidence"). 
As mentioned above, the plaintiffs did not file a
response to TD Bank's motion to dismiss, and, moreover, they
did not submit any evidence to "substantiate [their]
jurisdictional 
allegations" 
in 
their 
complaint. 
Covington 
Pike
Dodge, 904 So. 2d at 232. Because TD Bank made a prima facie
showing that the trial court lacked specific personal
jurisdiction and the plaintiffs failed to produce any 
evidence
to contradict that showing, the trial court should have
granted TD Bank's motion to dismiss. 
Conclusion
TD Bank has demonstrated that it has a clear legal right
to the relief sought. The petition is granted, and the trial
court is directed to grant TD Bank's motion to dismiss.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, and
Mendheim, JJ., concur.
 
Mitchell, J., recuses himself.
11