Title: SSC Selma Operating Company, LLC v. Gordon

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 11/16/2012 
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229¬
0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 
t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s 
may 
be 
made b e f o r e 
t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 
1110511 
SSC Selma Operating Company, 
LLC, 
d/b/a 
Warren Manor Health 
& R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Center, and Bernard Turk 
v. 
Ethel Gordon, administratrix of 
the 
estate of 
Jimmy 
Lee 
Gordon 
Appeal from D a l l a s C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-08-900087) 
STUART, J u s t i c e . 
SSC Selma O p e r a t i n g Company, LLC, d o i n g 
b u s i n e s s as 
Warren Manor 
H e a l t h & R e h a b i l i t a t i o n 
C e n t e r 
("SSC"), and 
B e r n a r d 
Turk, t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f Warren Manor 
H e a l t h & 
1110511 
R e h a b i l i t a t i o n 
C e n t e r 
("Warren 
Manor") 
(SSC and Turk a r e 
h e r e i n a f t e r 
r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as "the Warren 
Manor 
d e f e n d a n t s " ) , a p p e a l the judgment o f the D a l l a s C i r c u i t C o u r t 
d e n y i n g 
t h e i r 
j o i n t m o t i o n t o compel 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
o f t h e 
m e d i c a l - m a l p r a c t i c e w r o n g f u l - d e a t h 
c l a i m s 
a s s e r t e d 
a g a i n s t 
them by E t h e l Gordon ("Gordon"), t h e a d m i n i s t r a t r i x o f t h e 
e s t a t e o f Jimmy Lee Gordon, Gordon's husband, p u r s u a n t t o an 
a r b i t r a t i o n agreement t h e y a l l e g e Gordon had e n t e r e d i n t o w i t h 
SSC. 
We 
a f f i r m . 
I . 
T h i s i s t h e second o p i n i o n t h i s C o u r t has i s s u e d i n t h i s 
c a s e . 
In SSC Selma O p e r a t i n g Co. v. Gordon, 56 So. 3d 598 
( A l a . 2010) 
("Gordon I " ) , 
we were a l s o asked by t h e Warren 
Manor d e f e n d a n t s t o r e v e r s e an o r d e r e n t e r e d by t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
d e n y i n g 
t h e i r 
m o t i o n t o compel t h e 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
o f 
Gordon's c l a i m s p u r s u a n t t o an a r b i t r a t i o n agreement Gordon 
was a l l e g e d t o have e n t e r e d i n t o w i t h SSC a t t h e time h e r l a t e 
husband was a d m i t t e d t o Warren Manor.
1 
We h e l d i n Gordon I 
^In Gordon I , t h e Warren Manor d e f e n d a n t s were j o i n e d on 
a p p e a l 
by 
Sava 
S e n i o r 
Care 
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
S e r v i c e s , 
LLC 
("Sava"), the e n t i t y 
t h a t manages Warren Manor. 
Sava had 
f i l e d a s e p a r a t e m o t i o n t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n , w h i c h t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t had a l s o d e n i e d . 
Sava has n o t f i l e d a n o t h e r m o t i o n t o 
compel a r b i t r a t i o n , nor d i d i t 
j o i n i n t h e m o t i o n f i l e d by t h e 
2 
1110511 
t h a t i t was 
i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the 
t r i a l c o u r t e i t h e r t o g r a n t 
or 
t o deny the m o t i o n t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n a t t h a t 
t i m e , 
e x p l a i n i n g : 
" I n o r d e r t o s a t i s f y t h e i r burden of p r o o f , 
the 
[Warren Manor] d e f e n d a n t s must p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t 
a c o n t r a c t 
c a l l i n g f o r a r b i t r a t i o n e x i s t s and 
t h a t 
the 
' c o n t r a c t 
e v i d e n c e s 
a 
t r a n s a c t i o n 
a f f e c t i n g 
i n t e r s t a t e commerce.' 
F l e e t w o o d E n t e r s . , 
I n c . 
v. 
 
Bruno, 
784 
So. 
2d 
277, 
280 
( A l a . 2000) 
( c i t i n g 
TranSouth F i n . Corp. v. B e l l , 739 
So. 
2d 1110, 
1114 
( A l a . 
1 9 9 9 ) ) . 
The 
a r b i t r a t i o n agreement 
i t s e l f 
c o n s t i t u t e d 
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e 
t h a t 
a 
c o n t r a c t 
c a l l i n g f o r a r b i t r a t i o n 
e x i s t e d between SSC and 
Mrs. 
Gordon. 
Mrs. Gordon concedes i n her a p p e l l a t e b r i e f 
b e f o r e 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
t h a t 
SSC 
' [ i s ] engaged 
i n 
i n t e r s t a t e 
commerce.' 
(Mrs. 
Gordon's 
a p p e l l a t e 
b r i e f , 
a t 
25 
n. 
9.) 
Thus, 
the 
[Warren 
Manor] 
d e f e n d a n t s s a t i s f i e d t h e i r burden of 
p r o o f . 
"Once the [Warren Manor] d e f e n d a n t s 
s a t i s f i e d 
t h e i r burden of p r o d u c i n g s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t 
an 
a r b i t r a t i o n agreement 
e x i s t s , 
the 
burden 
t h e n 
s h i f t e d 
t o 
Mrs. 
Gordon 
t o 
produce 
s u f f i c i e n t 
e v i d e n c e t o c r e a t e a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t 
as 
t o whether the 
a r b i t r a t i o n agreement i s 
v a l i d . 
T h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n Ex p a r t e Meadows, 782 
So. 
2d 
277, 
280 
( A l a . 2000) 
: 
"'"'To 
make 
a 
genuine 
i s s u e 
e n t i t l i n g 
the 
[ p a r t y 
s e e k i n g 
t o 
a v o i d a r b i t r a t i o n ] t o a t r i a l 
by 
j u r y 
[ o n 
the 
a r b i t r a b i l i t y 
q u e s t i o n ] , 
an u n e q u i v o c a l 
d e n i a l 
t h a t the agreement had been made 
[ i s ] 
needed, 
and 
some 
e v i d e n c e 
s h o u l d 
[ b e ] 
p r o d u c e d 
t o 
s u b s t a n t i a t e the d e n i a l . ' " 
Warren Manor d e f e n d a n t s , and i t i s not a p a r t y t o t h i s 
a p p e a l . 
3 
1110511 
" ' [ C h a s t a i n v. Robinson-Humphrey Co., 957 
F.2d 851, 854 (11th C i r . 1992)] ( q u o t i n g T 
& R E n t e r s . , v. C o n t i n e n t a l G r a i n Co., 613 
F.2d 1272, 1278 (5th C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) ) . ' 
" I n 
t h e p r e s e n t 
case, 
Mrs. 
Gordon 
f i l e d 
a 
response t o t h e [Warren Manor] d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n [ ] 
t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n and a t t a c h e d t o t h e r e s p o n s e 
her 
a f f i d a v i t , i n w h i c h she d e n i e d 
t h a t she had 
s i g n e d an 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
agreement w i t h SSC. 
Under 
Meadows, 
Mrs. 
Gordon's 
a f f i d a v i t 
c o n s t i t u t e s 
s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t the a r b i t r a t i o n 
agreement 
d i d 
not 
e x i s t . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
a genuine 
i s s u e 
o f 
m a t e r i a l 
f a c t 
has 
been 
r a i s e d 
c o n c e r n i n g 
t h e 
e x i s t e n c e of t h e a r b i t r a t i o n 
agreement. 
' I f t h e 
p a r t y 
o p p o s i n g 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
p r e s e n t s 
s u f f i c i e n t 
e v i d e n c e 
t o 
c r e a t e 
a 
f a c t 
q u e s t i o n 
as 
t o t h e 
e x i s t e n c e o f a v a l i d a r b i t r a t i o n agreement, then t h e 
i s s u e must be r e s o l v e d by the t r i a l 
c o u r t or by a 
j u r y , i f 
one i s r e q u e s t e d . ' 
Ex p a r t e Caver, 742 So. 
2d [168] a t 172 n. 4 [ ( A l a . 
1 9 9 9 ) ] . 
"Based on Mrs. Gordon's demand i n h e r c o m p l a i n t 
f o r 
a 
t r i a l 
by 
j u r y , 
t h e 
i s s u e 
whether 
an 
a r b i t r a t i o n agreement e x i s t e d between SSC and Mrs. 
Gordon s h o u l d have been t r i e d b e f o r e a j u r y . 
See 
R u l e 
3 9 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 
However, 
t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t d e n i e d t h e [Warren Manor] d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n [ ] 
t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n w i t h o u t s u b m i t t i n g t h e i s s u e 
t o 
a 
j u r y . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
o r d e r 
 
d e n y i n g t h e [Warren Manor] d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n [ ] t o  
compel i s r e v e r s e d , and the case i s remanded f o r a  
j u r y 
t r i a l 
t o d e t e r m i n e whether 
an 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
 
agreement e x i s t e d between SSC and Mrs. Gordon." 
56 So. 3d a t 603 
(emphasis added). 
On remand, t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h our mandate, s e t a j u r y 
t r i a l t o 
d e t e r m i n e the i s s u e whether a v a l i d 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
agreement 
between Gordon and SSC e x i s t e d . 
On June 15, 2011, Gordon 
4 
1110511 
f i l e d 
a m o t i o n 
i n 
l i m i n e , 
n o t i n g 
t h a t 
the 
Warren Manor 
d e f e n d a n t s had 
acknowledged t h a t 
the 
o r i g i n a l copy of 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
agreement Gordon was 
a l l e g e d 
t o have 
e x e c u t e d 
c o u l d 
not 
be 
found and 
a s k i n g 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
t o bar 
the 
Warren Manor d e f e n d a n t s 
from 
i n t r o d u c i n g 
as 
e v i d e n c e 
any 
photocopy of the s i g n e d 
a r b i t r a t i o n agreement. 
C i t i n g R u l e 
1003, 
A l a . R. 
E v i d . , Gordon argued t h a t a photocopy of 
the 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
agreement 
she 
a l l e g e d l y 
s i g n e d 
s h o u l d 
be 
i n a d m i s s i b l e 
because 
an 
i s s u e 
had 
been 
r a i s e d 
as 
t o 
the 
a u t h e n t i c i t y of the 
o r i g i n a l . 
On June 20, 2011, 
the Warren Manor d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d 
t h e i r 
r e s p o n s e , a r g u i n g 
t h a t a photocopy of the s i g n e d 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
agreement 
s h o u l d 
be 
a l l o w e d 
b o t h because 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
had 
s p e c i f i c a l l y h e l d i n Gordon I t h a t "the a r b i t r a t i o n agreement 
i t s e l f 
c o n s t i t u t e d 
s u b s t a n t i a l 
e v i d e n c e 
t h a t 
a 
c o n t r a c t 
c a l l i n g 
f o r 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
e x i s t e d , " 
56 
So. 
3d 
a t 
603, 
and 
because the l e g i s l a t u r e s p e c i f i c a l l y has p r o v i d e d i n § 12-21¬
44, A l a . Code 1975, 
t h a t p h o t o c o p i e s of b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s 
are 
a d m i s s i b l e . 
In c o n j u n c t i o n 
w i t h 
t h e i r r e s p o n s e , the Warren 
Manor d e f e n d a n t s s u b m i t t e d an a f f i d a v i t from the d i r e c t o r of 
Warren Manor, who 
swore t h a t 
the p h o t o c o p y 
of 
the 
s i g n e d 
5 
1110511 
a r b i t r a t i o n agreement t h e 
Warren Manor d e f e n d a n t s i n t e n d e d t o 
submit a t t r i a l was a t r u e and c o r r e c t copy o f t h e o r i g i n a l 
and 
t h a t i t was made and e x e c u t e d i n t h e r e g u l a r c o u r s e o f 
b u s i n e s s . 
A h e a r i n g was h e l d on Gordon's motion i n l i m i n e on 
June 22, 2011, 
and, 
on J u l y 1, 2011, 
t h e t r i a l c o u r t 
e n t e r e d 
an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e 
m o t i o n , 
s t a t i n g : 
"[Gordon's] m o t i o n i n 
l i m i n e i s g r a n t e d , and t h e 
c o u r t 
f i n d s t h e d u p l i c a t e copy o f t h e a r b i t r a t i o n 
agreement i s i n a d m i s s i b l e . 
"The 
c o u r t 
f i n d s 
t h a t 
t h e 
[Warren 
Manor] 
d e f e n d a n t s d i d 
n o t p r o v i d e a r e a s o n a b l e 
a c c o u n t i n g 
f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f an o r i g i n a l o f t h e a r b i t r a t i o n 
agreement nor d i d [the Warren Manor] 
d e f e n d a n t s 
e s t a b l i s h 
t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
agreement 
was a w r i t i n g made i n 
t h e r e g u l a r c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s 
so t h a t t h e d u p l i c a t e was a d m i s s i b l e as a b u s i n e s s 
r e c o r d p u r s u a n t t o [§ 12-21-44(a), A l a . Code 1975, 
and 
R u l e 
4 4 ( h ) , A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P . ] . As such, t h e 
[Warren 
Manor] 
d e f e n d a n t s ' 
argument 
t h a t 
t h e 
b u s i n e s s 
r e c o r d e x c e p t i o n ... deems t h e a r b i t r a t i o n 
agreement a d m i s s i b l e i s 
w i t h o u t 
m e r i t . 
"[The Warren Manor] d e f e n d a n t s a l s o argue t h a t 
as a r e s u l t o f t h e d e c i s i o n by t h e Alabama Supreme 
C o u r t i n [Gordon I] t h a t [Gordon's] motion i n l i m i n e 
i s due t o 
be d e n i e d . 
T h i s c o u r t r e j e c t s t h e [Warren 
Manor] d e f e n d a n t s ' argument t h a t t h e 
Alabama Supreme 
C o u r t , by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a r b i t r a t i o n agreement 
f o r 
purposes o f a p p e a l , 
i n t e n d e d 
t h a t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
was 
w i t h o u t 
a u t h o r i t y 
t o 
f u r t h e r 
t e s t 
t h e 
a u t h e n t i c i t y o f t h e a r b i t r a t i o n agreement. 
" T h i s c o u r t i s 
unaware o f any law 
o r p r e c e d e n t 
t h a t p r e c l u d e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t from c o n s i d e r i n g t h e 
a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f c r i t i c a l e v i d e n c e a t t h e t r i a l o f 
6 
1110511 
a c a s e , though the e v i d e n c e has been c o n s i d e r e d on 
a p p e a l from an i n t e r l o c u t o r y 
o r d e r . 
"To adopt t h a t r u l e as the law, e s p e c i a l l y 
i n 
t h i s case, a b r o g a t e s [Rule 1003, A l a . R. E v i d . , ] and 
s e v e r e l y 
l i m i t s the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s f u n c t i o n as the 
g a t e k e e p e r o f the e v i d e n c e . " 
On 
August 
12, 
2011, 
the 
Warren 
Manor 
d e f e n d a n t s 
p e t i t i o n e d 
t h i s C o u r t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g 
the 
t r i a l c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n g Gordon's motion i n 
l i m i n e and t o p r o c e e d w i t h the j u r y 
t r i a l mandated by 
t h i s 
C o u r t i n Gordon I . 
On September 14, 2011, 
t h i s C o u r t d e n i e d 
t h a t p e t i t i o n w i t h o u t an o p i n i o n . 
On November 1, 2011, 
the 
Warren Manor d e f e n d a n t s 
f i l e d a renewed motion i n the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n of Gordon's c l a i m s . 
On November 
28, 2011, 
a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f a h e a r i n g , the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
d e n i e d the motion t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n . 
On J a n u a r y 9, 
2012, 
the Warren Manor d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d t h i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 
4 ( d ) , A l a . R. App. P., which p r o v i d e s t h a t an o r d e r d e n y i n g a 
motion t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n 
i s a p p e a l a b l e as a m a t t e r o f 
r i g h t . 
I I . 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
o r d e r 
d e n y i n g 
the 
Warren 
Manor 
d e f e n d a n t s ' motion t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n i s due t o be a f f i r m e d 
7 
1110511 
because 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
has 
not 
y e t 
c o n d u c t e d 
the 
t r i a l 
mandated by 
t h i s C o u r t i n Gordon I t o d e t e r m i n e whether 
a 
v a l i d 
a r b i t r a t i o n agreement e x i s t s between Gordon and 
SSC. 
" ' I t 
i s w e l l 
s e t t l e d 
t h a t , 
a f t e r remand, the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
s h o u l d comply s t r i c t l y w i t h the mandate of the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t 
Ex 
p a r t e Edwards, 
727 
So. 
2d 
792, 
794 
( A l a . 
1998) 
( q u o t i n g Auerbach v. P a r k e r , 558 So. 2d 900, 
902 
( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . 
T h i s C o u r t i s s u e d a mandate t h a t a j u r y t r i a l be h e l d on 
the 
i s s u e whether a v a l i d 
a r b i t r a t i o n agreement e x i s t s between 
Gordon and SSC, 
and the t r i a l c o u r t would v i o l a t e t h a t mandate 
i f 
i t were t o g r a n t 
the Warren Manor d e f e n d a n t s ' motion 
t o 
compel a r b i t r a t i o n b e f o r e h o l d i n g t h a t j u r y t r i a l . 
Thus, the 
t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y d e n i e d the motion t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n 
f i l e d by the Warren Manor d e f e n d a n t s . 
We 
f u r t h e r n o t e , however, t h a t t o the e x t e n t the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
and 
any 
of 
the 
p a r t i e s b e l i e v e 
t h a t 
the 
r u l i n g 
on 
Gordon's motion 
i n l i m i n e o b v i a t e s 
the 
r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t 
a 
t r i a l be h e l d and a f i n a l judgment e n t e r e d t h e y are m i s t a k e n . 
A r u l i n g g r a n t i n g or d e n y i n g a m o t i o n i n l i m i n e i s not a 
f i n a l 
judgment, and, 
f o r a l l t h a t a p p e a r s , no judgment has y e t been 
e n t e r e d 
on 
the 
i s s u e whether a v a l i d 
a r b i t r a t i o n agreement 
8 
1110511 
e x i s t s between Gordon and SSC. 
A t the y e t - t o - b e 
c o n d u c t e d 
t r i a l 
on t h a t i s s u e , the Warren Manor d e f e n d a n t s 
may 
a g a i n 
p r o f f e r the e v i d e n c e p r e v i o u s l y e x c l u d e d by the 
t r i a l c o u r t , 
and, 
i n f a c t , t h e y must do so i f t h e y hope t o p r e s e r v e 
the 
i s s u e f o r e v e n t u a l a p p e a l . 
As t h i s C o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n Bush v. 
Alabama Farm Bureau M u t u a l C a s u a l t y I n s u r a n c e Co., 576 So. 2d 
175, 177-78 ( A l a . 1991): 
"We 
r e c o g n i z e t h a t the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t has 
b r o a d 
d i s c r e t i o n i n e v i d e n t i a r y 
m a t t e r s . 
The g e n e r a l r u l e 
was 
s t a t e d i n S t a t e v. Askew, 455 
So. 2d 36 ( A l a . 
C i v . 
App. 
1984), 
c i t i n g 
C. Gamble, The 
M o t i o n 
i n  
L i m i n e : A P r e t r i a l Procedure That Has Come of 
Age, 
33 A l a . L. Rev. 
1 (1981), as 
f o l l o w s : 
"'In 
k e e p i n g 
w i t h 
the 
v e s t i n g of 
b r o a d 
d i s c r e t i o n i n the t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s a r e a , 
i t i s g e n e r a l l y h e l d t h a t the g r a n t i n g of 
a motion i n l i m i n e can never be 
r e v e r s i b l e 
e r r o r . 
The non-moving p a r t y may 
r e p e a t a t 
t r i a l , p r e f e r a b l y out of the h e a r i n g of the 
j u r y , h i s r e q u e s t f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o prove 
the c o n t e s t e d m a t t e r . 
T h i s o f f e r of p r o o f 
i s r e q u i r e d i n o r d e r t o i s o l a t e the 
e r r o r 
f o r a p p e a l . 
I t i s t h i s r e f u s a l a t t r i a l t o 
a c c e p t 
t h a t p r o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e , 
not 
the 
g r a n t i n g of the p r e t r i a l motion i n l i m i n e , 
t h a t 
s e r v e s 
as 
the b a s i s f o r 
r e v e r s i b l e 
e r r o r . 
Of c o u r s e , t h i s a b i l i t y t o b r i n g up 
the 
m a t t e r 
a 
second 
time 
would 
not 
be 
a v a i l a b l e i f c o u n s e l had r e q u e s t e d and the 
judge 
had 
g r a n t e d a 
p r o h i b i t i v e - a b s o l u t e 
motion i n l i m i n e . ' 
"455 
So. 2d a t 
37." 
9 
1110511 
Moreover, even i f t h e Warren Manor d e f e n d a n t s p r o f f e r t h e 
photocopy o f t h e s i g n e d 
a r b i t r a t i o n agreement and t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t a g a i n r u l e s i t 
i n a d m i s s i b l e , t h e 
Warren Manor d e f e n d a n t s 
may attempt t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e x i s t e n c e o f an agreement t o 
a r b i t r a t e by o t h e r e v i d e n c e . 
See, e.g., J e n k i n s v. A t e l i e r  
Homes, I n c . , 62 So. 3d 504, 509-10 ( A l a . 
2010) ( s t a t i n g , i n 
a 
case 
where 
t h e a l l e g e d 
e x e c u t e d 
c o n t r a c t 
c o n t a i n i n g 
an 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
c l a u s e 
had 
been 
l o s t , 
t h a t 
t h e 
d e f e n d a n t 
n e v e r t h e l e s s p u t f o r t h s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t 
t h e r e was a c o n t r a c t c a l l i n g f o r 
a r b i t r a t i o n v i a 
an a f f i d a v i t 
i n w h i c h t h e a f f i a n t swore t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s had e x e c u t e d 
such a c o n t r a c t , a l o n g w i t h a copy o f t h e s t a n d a r d 
c o n t r a c t 
t h a t was a l l e g e d t o have been u s e d ) .
2 
R e g a r d l e s s , 
however, 
the 
t r i a l 
w i l l c o n c l u d e w i t h a f i n a l judgment, and, i f t h a t 
judgment i s a d v e r s e t o t h e Warren Manor d e f e n d a n t s and t h e y 
have p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d any o b j e c t i o n s , t h e y may t i m e l y 
f i l e 
2 I n h e r m o t i o n i n l i m i n e , Gordon asked t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o 
e x c l u d e " [ a ] n y e v i d e n c e o f and o r r e f e r e n c e t o 
t h e copy o f 
t h e 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
agreement 
" 
I n i t s o r d e r 
g r a n t i n g 
t h a t 
m o t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d o n l y t h a t "the 
c o u r t f i n d s t h e 
d u p l i c a t e 
copy 
o f 
t h e 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
agreement 
t o 
be 
i n a d m i s s i b l e . " 
Thus, i t i s u n c l e a r 
i f t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
i n t e n d e d 
t o 
p r o h i b i t any 
attempt 
by t h e Warren 
Manor 
d e f e n d a n t s t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t an a r b i t r a t i o n agreement e x i s t e d . 
Presumably, t h i s would be c l a r i f i e d a t t r i a l when t h e Warren 
Manor d e f e n d a n t s made t h e i r p r o f f e r o f e v i d e n c e . 
10 
1110511 
an a p p e a l c h a l l e n g i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e v i d e n t i a r y d e c i s i o n s . 
Any attempt t o a p p e a l t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n whether t o 
admit c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e 
e n t r y o f 
a f i n a l judgment 
i s 
premature. 
See Ex p a r t e Sysco Food S e r v s . o f J a c k s o n , LLC, 
901 So. 2d 671, 674 ( A l a . 2004) 
("Alabama 
p r e c e d e n t has 
e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t 
r e v i e w o f an o r d e r 
g r a n t i n g o r d e n y i n g a 
m o t i o n i n l i m i n e i s 
by a p p e a l . " ) .
3 
I I I . 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
p r o p e r l y 
d e n i e d 
t h e Warren 
Manor 
d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n o f Gordon's 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t them because t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t has y e t t o conduct a 
t r i a l t o r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e i d e n t i f i e d by t h i s C o u r t i n Gordon 
I — 
whether a v a l i d 
a r b i t r a t i o n 
agreement 
e x i s t s 
between 
Gordon and SSC. 
Only i f t h a t 
i s s u e i s answered i n 
t h e 
a f f i r m a t i v e may t h e 
Warren Manor d e f e n d a n t s p r o p e r l y move t o 
compel 
a r b i t r a t i o n . 
I f t h a t 
t r i a l 
r e s u l t s i n a judgment 
h o l d i n g t h a t t h e r e i s 
no v a l i d a r b i t r a t i o n agreement, then 
t h e 
Warren Manor d e f e n d a n t s may f i l e a t i m e l y a p p e a l c h a l l e n g i n g 
the t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g e x c l u d i n g any e v i d e n c e t h e y w i s h e d t o 
3 F o r 
t h i s 
r e a s o n , 
t h e Warren 
Manor 
d e f e n d a n t s 
were 
e n t i t l e d t o no r e l i e f on t h e i r e a r l i e r p e t i t i o n a s k i n g 
t h i s 
C o u r t t o i s s u e a w r i t o f 
mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o 
v a c a t e i t s 
J u l y 1, 2011, o r d e r . 
11 
1110511 
submit a t t r i a l . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , the judgment o f the t r i a l 
c o u r t 
i s a f f i r m e d . 
AFFIRMED. 
Malone, C.J., and Shaw and Wise, J J . , c o n c u r . 
P a r k e r , J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t . 
12