Title: Bates v. Stewart

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

R e l : 04/27/2012 
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) 
2 2 9 - 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, 2011-2012 
1100063 
George Bates and 
David Joyner 
v. 
Donald W
. Stewart, i n d i v i d u a l l y and 
as trustee of the 
Abernathy Trust, and 
the 
Abernathy Trust Foundation 
Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-10-900165) 
1101452 
Ex parte Donald W
. Stewart, Donald W
. Stewart, P.C., 
and 
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman 
LLP 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
(In r e : Sabrina Abernathy et a l . 
v. 
Monsanto Company et al.) 
(Etowah C i r c u i t Court, CV-01-832) 
1101456 
Donald W. Stewart, Donald W. Stewart, P.C., 
and Kasowitz, 
Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP 
v. 
Sabrina Abernathy et a l . 
Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-01-832) 
MAIN, 
J u s t i c e . 
These t h r e e a p p e l l a t e p r o c e e d i n g s have been c o n s o l i d a t e d 
f o r purposes of w r i t i n g one o p i n i o n . 
The a c t i o n u n d e r l y i n g 
the 
f i r s t 
a p p e a l 
(case no. CV-10-900165) 
was 
f i l e d i n t h e 
Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t on A p r i l 15, 2010, by George B a t e s and 
D a v i d J o y n e r a g a i n s t D o n a l d W. S t e w a r t , i n d i v i d u a l l y and as 
t r u s t e e 
of t h e A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t , 
and t h e A b e r n a t h y 
T r u s t 
F o u n d a t i o n 
( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e F o u n d a t i o n " ) . In 
a p p e a l no. 1100063, B a t e s and J o y n e r a p p e a l from a judgment o f 
the Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t d i s m i s s i n g t h e i r c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t 
2 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
S t e w a r t 
and t h e F o u n d a t i o n . 
The u n d e r l y i n g 
case 
w i l l 
h e r e i n a f t e r be r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e f i r s t 
a c t i o n . " 
The a c t i o n u n d e r l y i n g a p p e a l no. 1101456 was f i l e d i n t h e 
Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t on J a n u a r y 20, 2011, 
by L i n d y Adams, Ed 
F. D a v i d s o n , and R o o s e v e l t Boyd 
( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as 
" t h e Adams 
p l a i n t i f f s " ) , 
who 
f i l e d 
what 
t h e y 
e n t i t l e d a 
" m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e as p l a i n t i f f s 
and f o r 
an a c c o u n t i n g and 
o t h e r r e l i e f " from D o n a l d W. S t e w a r t , D o n a l d W. S t e w a r t , P.C., 
and 
K a s o w i t z , Benson, 
T o r r e s & Friedman 
L L P 
( 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 " S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z " ) ( c a s e no. 
CV-01-832) . 
The Adams p l a i n t i f f s 
f i l e d 
t h e i r motion i n a 
l o n g - s t a n d i n g 
a c t i o n 
a g a i n s t Monsanto Company, i t s p a r e n t 
c o r p o r a t i o n , and a 
s p i n - o f f 
c o r p o r a t i o n . 
I n a p p e a l no. 
1101456, S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z a p p e a l from o r d e r s e n t e r e d by 
the t r i a l c o u r t on August 22 and 
September 9, 2011, p u r p o r t i n g 
t o reopen a f i n a l judgment i n t h a t a c t i o n e n t e r e d i n 2003. 
The a c t i o n u n d e r l y i n g a p p e a l no. 1101456 w i l l h e r e i n a f t e r be 
r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e 
second 
a c t i o n . " 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z have a l s o 
f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r 
a 
w r i t o f 
mandamus a s k i n g t h i s C o u r t t o r e q u i r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t 
i n t h e second 
a c t i o n t o v a c a t e i t s o r d e r s o f August 22 and 
September 9 (no. 
1101452). 
T h i s p r o c e e d i n g w i l l 
h e r e i n a f t e r 
3 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
be r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n . " 
As t o t h e a p p e a l 
i n t h e f i r s t a c t i o n , we a f f i r m i n p a r t , r e v e r s e i n p a r t , and 
remand. 
As t o t h e a p p e a l i n the second a c t i o n , we d i s m i s s t h e 
a p p e a l as moot. 
As t o t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n , we g r a n t t h e 
p e t i t i o n i n p a r t , deny i t 
i n p a r t , and i s s u e the w r i t . 
I. F a c t u a l Background and P r o c e d u r a l 
H i s t o r y 
These a p p e l l a t e p r o c e e d i n g s a r e the most r e c e n t i n a l i n e 
of cases a r i s i n g out o f a t o x i c - t o r t a c t i o n a g a i n s t Monsanto 
Company; i t s p a r e n t c o r p o r a t i o n , Pharmacia C o r p o r a t i o n ; and a 
s p i n - o f f c o r p o r a t i o n , S o l u t i a , I n c . ( 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 " t h e Monsanto c o r p o r a t i o n s " ) . 
The Monsanto 
c o r p o r a t i o n s 
m a n u f a c t u r e d and 
d i s p o s e d 
of 
p o l y c h l o r i n a t e d 
b i p h e n y l s 
("PCBs") i n A n n i s t o n 
from 
1935 
t o 1971. 
The 
manufacture and d i s t r i b u t i o n of t o x i c s u b s t a n c e s such as PCBs 
were banned i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s i n 1976. 
See 15 U.S.C. § 
2 6 0 5 ( e ) . 
In 1996, Thomas Long, S r . , sued the Monsanto 
c o r p o r a t i o n s , 
a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e Monsanto 
c o r p o r a t i o n s 
had 
r e l e a s e d PCBs and o t h e r h a r m f u l c h e m i c a l s i n t o t h e a i r , s o i l , 
s u r f a c e w a t e r , and groundwater near h i s p r o p e r t y 
i n Calhoun 
County and t h a t he s u f f e r e d p h y s i c a l harm and o t h e r damage as 
a r e s u l t of t h e r e l e a s e o f t h o s e c h e m i c a l s . 
Two o t h e r 
a c t i o n s 
were 
f i l e d 
a g a i n s t 
t h e 
Monsanto 
c o r p o r a t i o n s 
a l l e g i n g 
4 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
n e g l i g e n c e , wantonness, b r e a c h o f a d u t y t o warn, 
f r a u d , 
m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , 
d e c e i t , 
p r i v a t e 
and 
p u b l i c 
n u i s a n c e , 
t r e s p a s s , t h e t o r t o f o u t r a g e , common-law s t r i c t 
l i a b i l i t y , 
a s s a u l t , b a t t e r y , and n e g l i g e n t and i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n o f 
e m o t i o n a l 
d i s t r e s s 
a r i s i n g 
from 
t h e 
r e l e a s e 
o f 
t h o s e 
c h e m i c a l s . 
The t h r e e 
a c t i o n s , 
w i t h over 3,500 
p l a i n t i f f s 
( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as "the 
Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s " ) , 
were 
c o n s o l i d a t e d ; 
however, 
t h e 
a c t i o n 
r e s u l t i n g 
from t h e 
c o n s o l i d a t i o n 
( h e r e i n a f t e r 
r e f e r r e d 
t o as "the Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n " ) was not 
a c l a s s a c t i o n . The Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n , 
s t y l e d " S a b r i n a A b e r n a t h y 
e t a l . v. Monsanto Company e t a l . , " 
was t r a n s f e r r e d 
from Calhoun County t o Etowah County, and 
Judge J o e l L a i r d , a j u d g e i n t h e Calhoun C i r c u i t C o u r t , was 
a p p o i n t e d by t h e C h i e f 
J u s t i c e o f t h i s C o u r t as a s p e c i a l 
j u d g e i n 
Etowah County t o p r e s i d e over t h e c a s e .
1 
On J a n u a r y 
7, 2002, a j u r y 
t r i a l 
began on c l a i m s common t o a l l t h e 
Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s and on t h e 
property-damage c l a i m s o f 17 o f 
t h o s e p l a i n t i f f s . 
The j u r y found t h e Monsanto 
c o r p o r a t i o n s 
1 I n J a n u a r y 2011, Judge Deborah Jones took o f f i c e as a 
j u d g e i n t h e Calhoun C i r c u i t C o u r t , s u c c e e d i n g Judge L a i r d . 
The C h i e f J u s t i c e o f t h i s C o u r t then a p p o i n t e d Judge Jones as 
a s p e c i a l j u d g e i n Etowah County t o c o n t i n u e p r e s i d i n g 
over 
the Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
5 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
l i a b l e on t h e Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s of w a n t o n n e s s , 
t h e 
t o r t 
of o u t r a g e , 
" s u p p r e s s i o n 
of the 
t r u t h , " 
n e g l i g e n c e , 
t r e s p a s s , n u i s a n c e , and p u b l i c n u i s a n c e . 
A f t e r seven y e a r s of l i t i g a t i o n , a t r i a l as t o l i a b i l i t y , 
and 
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 
500 
i n d i v i d u a l 
t r i a l s 
on damages, t h e 
p a r t i e s r e a c h e d a s e t t l e m e n t f o r $300 m i l l i o n i n 2003. 
The 
s e t t l e m e n t agreement r e q u i r e d t h e Monsanto c o r p o r a t i o n s t o 
make an immediate payment 
o f $275 
m i l l i o n 
and 10 
annual 
payments o f $2.5 
m i l l i o n 
t h e r e a f t e r , f o r a t o t a l of $300 
m i l l i o n . 
The $275 m i l l i o n payment, l e s s $35 m i l l i o n , was 
d i s b u r s e d t o t h e Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s and t h e i r a t t o r n e y s and 
was 
u s e d t o pay 
t h e 
c l a i m s 
of each 
s e t t l i n g 
Monsanto 
p l a i n t i f f , t o fund a r e l o c a t i o n / p r o p e r t y - a d j u s t m e n t f u n d f o r 
the b e n e f i t of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 920 Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s who were 
p r o p e r t y owners and r e s i d e n t s i n t h e a f f e c t e d a r e a , t o pay 
a t t o r n e y 
f e e s , and t o r e i m b u r s e 
t h e Monsanto 
p l a i n t i f f s ' 
a t t o r n e y s f o r 
t h e c o s t s and expenses i n c u r r e d i n t h e Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
The Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s ' a t t o r n e y s were t o be 
p a i d a 40% a t t o r n e y f e e from t h e $275 m i l l i o n payment, l e s s 
$15 
m i l l i o n 
i n c o s t s and e x p e n s e s , i n a d d i t i o n t o a 40% 
a t t o r n e y f e e from each a n n u a l $2.5 m i l l i o n payment. 
6 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
The s e t t l e m e n t agreement p r o v i d e d t h a t o f t h e 
$35 m i l l i o n 
not d i s b u r s e d t o 
t h e 
Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s $21 m i l l i o n was t o 
be 
p l a c e d i n t o a t r u s t ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o 
as " t h e A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t " ) 
e s t a b l i s h e d t o pay 
h e a l t h - c a r e 
and 
e d u c a t i o n a l 
b e n e f i t s 
t o those 
Monsanto 
p l a i n t i f f s 
who 
q u a l i f i e d f o r 
a s s i s t a n c e 
w i t h 
m e d i c a l 
t r e a t m e n t 
and o t h e r 
h e a l t h - c a r e 
s e r v i c e s and/or who q u a l i f i e d f o r a s s i s t a n c e w i t h e d u c a t i o n a l 
g r a n t s , s c h o l a r s h i p s , 
o r l o a n s , and $14 m i l l i o n was t o 
be p a i d 
as a t t o r n e y f e e s . 
Of each a n n u a l payment o f $2.5 m i l l i o n , 
$1.5 
m i l l i o n was t o 
be p l a c e d i n t o t h e 
A b e r n a t h y t r u s t , and $1 
m i l l i o n — 40% -- was t o 
be p a i d as a t t o r n e y f e e s . 
Paragraphs 
3.g. and 3.h. o f 
t h e s e t t l e m e n t agreement, t h e 
p r o v i s i o n s t h a t 
a d d r e s s t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g and f u n d i n g t h e 
A b e r n a t h y t r u s t , s t a t e : 
" g . 
T h i r t y - F i v e 
M i l l i o n 
D o l l a r s 
($35,000,000.00), p l u s any i n t e r e s t a c c r u e d on such 
amount d u r i n g t h e time such money was on d e p o s i t i n 
the S e t t l e m e n t Account and t h e 
Escrow A c c o u n t , 
s h a l l 
be 
p a i d 
d i r e c t l y 
from 
t h e Escrow 
Account 
t o 
p l a i n t i f f s ' 
c o u n s e l 
and 
t o 
a 
c o r p o r a t i o n , 
f o u n d a t i o n , 
t r u s t 
o r 
o t h e r 
a p p r o p r i a t e 
e n t i t y 
d e s i g n a t e d by [the 
Monsanto] p l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l as 
f o l l o w s : 
" i . F o u r t e e n 
M i l l i o n D o l l a r s ($14,000,000.00), 
p l u s any i n t e r e s t a c c r u e d on such amount d u r i n g t h e 
time such money was on d e p o s i t i n t h e 
S e t t l e m e n t 
A c c o u n t and t h e Escrow A c c o u n t , 
s h a l l be p a i d t o 
7 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
[the Monsanto] 
p l a i n t i f f s ' 
c o u n s e l 
f o r a t t o r n e y s ' 
f e e s ; 
" i i . 
Twenty-One 
M i l l i o n 
D o l l a r s 
($21,000,000.00), p l u s any i n t e r e s t a c c r u e d on 
such 
amount d u r i n g the time such money was on d e p o s i t i n 
the S e t t l e m e n t Account and the Escrow A c c o u n t , 
s h a l l 
be used by 
the 
c o r p o r a t i o n , f o u n d a t i o n , 
t r u s t 
or 
o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e e n t i t y f o r the f o l l o w i n g 
g e n e r a l 
p u r p o s e s , 
and the c o r p o r a t i o n , f o u n d a t i o n , t r u s t or 
o t h e r e n t i t y w i l l have the a u t h o r i t y t o expend funds 
f o r 
such 
p u r p o s e s , 
but 
w i l l 
not 
be 
r e q u i r e d 
t o 
p e r f o r m e v e r y such p u r p o s e : 
"(1) To p r o v i d e p r i m a r y h e a l t h c a r e and/or t o 
a s s i s t i n g a i n i n g a c c e s s t o p r i m a r y h e a l t h c a r e 
and 
o t h e r 
h e a l t h 
c a r e 
s e r v i c e s 
( i n c l u d i n g 
but 
not 
l i m i t e d 
t o 
l a b , d e n t a l , o u t r e a c h , 
p r e n a t a l 
c a r e , 
r a d i o l o g y , 
case 
management, pharmacy, 
p r e v e n t i v e 
m e d i c i n e , 
h o l i s t i c m e d i c i n e 
and 
o t h e r h e a l t h 
c a r e 
programs) 
by 
making 
g r a n t s 
or payments 
f o r 
the 
a c t u a l b e n e f i t of p e r s o n s 
meeting the 
c r i t e r i a 
of 
the c o r p o r a t i o n , f o u n d a t i o n , t r u s t or o t h e r 
e n t i t y ; 
or 
"(2) To p r o v i d e e d u c a t i o n a l g r a n t s , s c h o l a r s h i p s 
l o a n s 
t o p e r s o n s 
m e e t i n g 
the 
c r i t e r i a 
of 
the 
c o r p o r a t i o n , f o u n d a t i o n , t r u s t or o t h e r e n t i t y f o r 
p u r p o s e s 
i n c l u d i n g 
but 
not 
l i m i t e d 
t o 
t h o s e 
d e s c r i b e d i n subparagraph (5) below; 
"(3) To p r o v i d e h e a l t h e d u c a t i o n and 
i n s t r u c t i o n 
t o or on b e h a l f of p e r s o n s m e e t i n g the 
c r i t e r i a 
of 
the c o r p o r a t i o n , f o u n d a t i o n , t r u s t or o t h e r 
e n t i t y ; 
"(4) To p r o v i d e such o t h e r programs or payments 
r e l a t i n g t o h e a l t h , e d u c a t i o n and community w e l f a r e 
t h a t would b e n e f i t such p e r s o n s m e e t i n g the 
c r i t e r i a 
of 
the 
c o r p o r a t i o n , 
f o u n d a t i o n , 
t r u s t 
or 
o t h e r 
e n t i t y ; 
and 
"(5) 
To 
c r e a t e an 
e d u c a t i o n a l t r u s t 
fund 
t o 
endow s c h o l a r s h i p s , g r a n t s 
or 
l o a n s 
f o r p u r p o s e s 
i n c l u d i n g but not l i m i t e d t o the e v a l u a t i o n of 
and 
8 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
development 
of 
p e r s o n a l 
e d u c a t i o n 
p l a n s , 
p r e - k i n d e r g a r t e n program p a r t i c i p a t i o n , a f t e r - s c h o o l 
program p a r t i c i p a t i o n , 
t u t o r i n g , 
p a r t i c i p a t i o n 
i n 
r e m e d i a l programs or i n d i v i d u a l e n r i c h m e n t programs, 
computer 
t r a i n i n g 
programs, 
SAT/ACT 
or 
o t h e r 
e x a m i n a t i o n p r e p a r a t i o n programs, and 
p a r t i c i p a t i o n 
i n t e c h n i c a l t r a i n i n g , v o c a t i o n a l , GED, 
c o l l e g e or 
a d u l t e d u c a t i o n a l programs. 
"h. 
The 
a n n u a l payments of Two 
M i l l i o n , 
F i v e 
Hundred Thousand D o l l a r s ($2,500,000.00) 
s h a l l 
be 
p a i d 
d i r e c t l y from the 
[Monsanto c o r p o r a t i o n s ] 
t o 
[the 
Monsanto] 
p l a i n t i f f s ' 
c o u n s e l 
and 
t o 
the 
c o r p o r a t i o n , f o u n d a t i o n , t r u s t or o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e 
e n t i t y 
d e s i g n a t e d 
by 
[the Monsanto] 
p l a i n t i f f s ' 
c o u n s e l p u r s u a n t 
t o p a r a g r a p h 3.g. 
as f o l l o w s : 
" i . One M i l l i o n D o l l a r s ($1,000,000.00) s h a l l be 
p a i d t o p l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l f o r a t t o r n e y s ' f e e s ; 
" i i . 
One 
M i l l i o n F i v e Hundred Thousand D o l l a r s 
($1,500,000.00) 
s h a l l be p a i d t o the c o r p o r a t i o n , 
f o u n d a t i o n , 
t r u s t 
or 
o t h e r 
a p p r o p r i a t e 
e n t i t y 
e s t a b l i s h e d or s e l e c t e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p a r a g r a p h 
3.g. 
h e r e o f 
f o r the p u r p o s e s o u t l i n e d i n p a r a g r a p h 
3.g. 
h e r e o f . " 
Each 
of 
the 
Monsanto 
p l a i n t i f f s 
s i g n e d 
a 
r e t a i n e r 
agreement 
p r o v i d i n g 
f o r 
a 
40% 
a t t o r n e y 
f e e ; 
s i g n e d 
a 
s e t t l e m e n t 
agreement 
s p e c i f y i n g h i s 
or 
her 
share 
of 
the 
s e t t l e m e n t , 
a t t o r n e y 
f e e s , 
and 
expenses; 
and 
r e c e i v e d 
and 
cashed h i s or her s e t t l e m e n t check. 
The s e t t l e m e n t agreement 
e x e c u t e d by each of the Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s acknowledged: 
" I u n d e r s t a n d 
t h a t t h e s e 
s h a r e s 
are s h a r e s 
of 
the 
t o t a l 
s e t t l e m e n t 
n e t 
of 
the 
c o u r t - a p p r o v e d 
40% 
a t t o r n e y s ' 
f e e s 
and 
$15 
m i l l i o n 
i n 
c o s t s 
and 
9 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
expenses 
( a l l i n 
a c c o r d a n c e 
w i t h 
my 
r e t a i n e r 
agreement and the s e t t l e m e n t agreement)." 
On September 12, 2003, the 
t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an 
o r d e r 
a p p r o v i n g 
the s e t t l e m e n t agreement as 
" f a i r and 
r e a s o n a b l e , 
i n c l u d i n g the payment of a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and expenses as s e t 
f o r t h i n the S e t t l e m e n t Agreement." 
The s e t t l e m e n t agreement 
was 
i n c o r p o r a t e d 
as 
a p a r t 
of 
the 
f i n a l 
judgment, 
w h i c h 
p r o v i d e d 
t h a t 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
" r e t a i n [ e d ] 
c o n t i n u i n g 
j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s m a t t e r f o r the purpose of e n f o r c i n g the  
S e t t l e m e n t 
Agreement." 
(Emphasis added.) 
No 
a p p e a l s 
were 
t a k e n from the judgment. 
In 2004, S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z r e c e i v e d communications on 
b e h a l f of Sarah A v e r y , one of the Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s , 
s t a t i n g 
her i n t e n t t o 
f i l e a c l a s s a c t i o n t o c h a l l e n g e the 
a t t o r n e y 
fee 
and 
c o s t s awarded 
i n the 
s e t t l e m e n t 
of 
the 
Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z 
f i l e d a m o t i o n 
r e q u e s t i n g 
t h a t 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e n j o i n A v e r y 
and 
any 
o t h e r 
Monsanto 
p l a i n t i f f 
from 
f i l i n g an independent a c t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g 
the 
s e t t l e m e n t agreement. 
On October 29, 2004, the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e n t e r e d an o r d e r t h a t " r e a f f i r m [ e d ] t h a t the t a x i n g of c o s t s 
[and expenses] i n the amount of $15 m i l l i o n , and the award of 
40% of the r e c o v e r y 
( a f t e r c o s t s and expenses) as a t t o r n e y s ' 
10 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
f e e s , was 
f a i r and r e a s o n a b l e " and t h a t e n j o i n e d A v e r y 
and 
" a l l o t h e r p e r s o n s ... from t a k i n g any a c t i o n t o 
i n t e r f e r e 
w i t h the terms of the S e t t l e m e n t Agreement." 
A v e r y 
f i l e d a 
m o t i o n t o c l a r i f y o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , t o r e s c i n d the October 29 
o r d e r , 
a r g u i n g t h a t 
S t e w a r t and 
K a s o w i t z had " i m p r o p e r l y 
' d o u b l e - d i p p e d ' " because, A v e r y 
s a i d , 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z 
"deducted 
a 
40% 
c o n t i n g e n t 
f e e 
from 
the 
$300 
m i l l i o n 
s e t t l e m e n t , and then d e d u c t e d an a d d i t i o n a l 40% f e e from each 
i n d i v i d u a l 
P l a i n t i f f ' s 
award." 
On December 15, 2004, the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e n t e r e d an 
o r d e r d e n y i n g A v e r y ' s 
m o t i o n 
and 
f i n d i n g t h a t a 40% a t t o r n e y f e e i n the Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n was 
r e a s o n a b l e p u r s u a n t t o t h e 12 c r i t e r i a t h i s C o u r t 
enumerated 
i n Pharmacia Corp. v. McGowan, 915 So. 2d 549, 552-53 ( A l a . 
2004) ( q u o t i n g Van Schaack v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 
530 So. 2d 
740, 749 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ) . 
A. The F i r s t A c t i o n 
On 
A p r i l 
15, 
2010, 
B a t e s 
and 
J o y n e r , b o t h 
o r i g i n a l 
Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s , 
f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t S t e w a r t , the 
F o u n d a t i o n , and 
f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t s i n the Etowah 
C i r c u i t C o u r t . The c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t 
" [ t ] h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t F o u n d a t i o n i s a t r u s t o r g a n i z e d under 
the laws of the S t a t e o f Alabama" and, "[u]pon i n f o r m a t i o n and 
11 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
b e l i e f , " 
t h a t " S t e w a r t and Defendants A-Z 
c r e a t e d a 
t r u s t 
known as The A b e r n a t h y T r u s t F o u n d a t i o n and/or Defendants 1-
10."
2 
B a t e s and J o y n e r sought an a c c o u n t i n g o f the A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t 
p u r s u a n t 
t o § 
19-3B-205(a), 
A l a . Code 
1975, 
w h i c h 
s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
"A t r u s t e e may 
f i l e an a c c o u n t i n g o f the t r u s t e e ' s 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a t r u s t i n c o u r t a t any time and 
seek a p a r t i a l or f i n a l s e t t l e m e n t t h e r e o f o r , upon  
p e t i t i o n of an i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y , a c o u r t may 
o r d e r  
a t r u s t e e t o r e n d e r an a c c o u n t i n g of the t r u s t e e ' s  
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a t r u s t and r e q u i r e a p a r t i a l or  
f i n a l s e t t l e m e n t t h e r e o f . 
..." 
(Emphasis added.) 
B a t e s and J o y n e r f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t t h e y 
are 
" i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s " under the s t a t u t e and demanded an 
a c c o u n t i n g o f the A b e r n a t h y t r u s t . 
B a t e s and J o y n e r a t t a c h e d 
as e x h i b i t s t o the c o m p l a i n t the s e t t l e m e n t agreement i n the 
Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n and the t r i a l c o u r t ' s 2003 o r d e r a p p r o v i n g 
the s e t t l e m e n t . B a t e s and J o y n e r a l s o sought an a c c o u n t i n g of 
the use of the s e t t l e m e n t funds from the Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
2The terms "the A b e r n a t h y T r u s t , " "the A b e r n a t h y T r u s t 
Fund," "the A b e r n a t h y T r u s t F o u n d a t i o n , " and "the A b e r n a t h y 
T r u s t Fund B o a r d " are used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y i n b r i e f s 
f i l e d 
w i t h t h i s C o u r t and i n documents c o n t a i n e d i n the r e c o r d . 
We 
cannot d e t e r m i n e from the documents b e f o r e us w h i c h of t h e s e 
terms i s c o r r e c t ; t h e r e f o r e , we r e f e r t o the t r u s t r e s as "the 
A b e r n a t h y t r u s t " and t o the e n t i t y a d m i n i s t e r i n g the A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t as "the F o u n d a t i o n . " We have not changed the terms used 
i n t h e documents we quote i n t h i s 
o p i n i o n . 
12 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
On May 
17, 2010, S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n 
f i l e d 
a 
motion 
t o d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t , a l l e g i n g 
t h a t B a t e s 
and 
J o y n e r were a t t e m p t i n g t o reopen a c o u r t - a p p r o v e d s e t t l e m e n t , 
t h a t t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t was " c r e a t e d under New York law" and, 
t h e y argued, " t h e r e f o r e i s not governed by t h e Alabama Code." 
In t h e i r m o t i o n , S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n sought t o have the 
c o m p l a i n t d i s m i s s e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 12(b) ( 1 ) , 
A l a . 
R. C i v . P. 
("lack of j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r " ) , and R u l e 
1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) 
( " f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f can be 
g r a n t e d " ) . 
S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n a t t a c h e d as e x h i b i t s t o 
t h e i r 
motion 
the 
s e t t l e m e n t 
agreement 
i n t h e 
Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n , t h e 2003 o r d e r a p p r o v i n g t h e s e t t l e m e n t , and t h e 
two 2004 o r d e r s e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t i n t h e Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
On May 18, B a t e s and J o y n e r 
f i l e d a motion t o c o n v e r t 
S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n ' s motion t o d i s m i s s i n t o a motion 
f o r a summary judgment o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , t o deny the m o t i o n . 
B a t e s and J o y n e r f i l e d t h e i r motion t o c o n v e r t because, t h e y 
s a i d , i n t h e i r motion t o d i s m i s s S t e w a r t and the F o u n d a t i o n 
had a s s e r t e d f a c t u a l m a t t e r s not a s s e r t e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t , 
i . e . , 
t h a t t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t was c r e a t e d under New York law 
and t h a t $21 m i l l i o n had been used t o f u n d t h e t r u s t . 
On May 
13 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
24, the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r s e t t i n g a s c h e d u l i n g 
c o n f e r e n c e and a h e a r i n g on a l l 
p e n d i n g motions on August 
2. 
On June 17, Bates and J o y n e r f i l e d a s u p p l e m e n t a l response t o 
S t e w a r t and the F o u n d a t i o n ' s motion t o d i s m i s s . 
On J u l y 29, 
S t e w a r t and the F o u n d a t i o n f i l e d a response i n o p p o s i t i o n t o 
the 
motion 
t o c o n v e r t 
t h e i r 
motion 
t o a summary-judgment 
m o t i o n . 
On 
J u l y 30, B a t e s and Joyner moved t o s t r i k e 
the 
r e s p o n s e . 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t d i d not 
r u l e on the motion 
t o 
s t r i k e b e f o r e the h e a r i n g s e t f o r August 2, which took p l a c e 
as s c h e d u l e d . 
On August 2, a f t e r h e a r i n g arguments from the 
p a r t i e s , 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d 
a 
b r i e f i n g 
s c h e d u l e 
on " a l l 
r e l e v a n t i s s u e s i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , the q u e s t i o n o f 
venue." 
On August 25, S t e w a r t and the F o u n d a t i o n 
f i l e d 
an 
amended motion t o d i s m i s s and a s u p p o r t i n g memorandum b r i e f . 
S t e w a r t and the F o u n d a t i o n u r g e d the t r i a l c o u r t t o d i s m i s s 
the 
c o m p l a i n t because, t h e y argued, the c i r c u i t c o u r t i n the 
Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n 
r e t a i n e d c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n over the 
s e t t l e m e n t , making j u r i s d i c t i o n e x c l u s i v e i n Calhoun 
County.
3 
3 S t e w a r t 
and 
the 
F o u n d a t i o n 
are 
r e f e r r i n g 
t o 
Etowah 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t 
case 
no. 
CV-01-832, 
the 
o r i g i n a l 
case 
t r a n s f e r r e d 
t o the Etowah 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t 
from 
the 
Calhoun 
C i r c u i t C o u r t . 
14 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e y argued, " a t a minimum, t h i s a c t i o n i s due 
t o 
be 
t r a n s f e r r e d 
t o Calhoun 
County." 
S t e w a r t 
and t h e 
F o u n d a t i o n 
c o n t i n u e d 
t o argue 
t h a t 
t h e a c t i o n 
s h o u l d 
be 
d i s m i s s e d 
f o r l a c k of s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n , b u t t h e y 
a l s o argued, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , t h a t t h e a c t i o n s h o u l d be 
t r a n s f e r r e d 
t o t h e 
Calhoun 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t 
because, 
t h e y 
a l l e g e d , 
"venue f o r an 
a c t i o n 
[ f o r an a c c o u n t i n g 
of t h e 
A b e r n a t h y t r u s t ] b r o u g h t i n t h i s 
s t a t e 
l i e s 
e x c l u s i v e l y i n 
Calhoun County p u r s u a n t t o § 1 9 - 3 B - 2 0 4 ( a ) ( i i ) 
and 
( i i i ) , " A l a . 
Code 1975. S e c t i o n 19-3B-204(a) s t a t e s : 
"Except as o t h e r w i s e 
p r o v i d e d 
i n s u b s e c t i o n 
( b ) , 
venue f o r a c t i o n s and p r o c e e d i n g s i n v o l v i n g a t r u s t 
i s p r o p e r ... ( i i ) i n t h e county o f t h i s s t a t e where 
the t r u s t has i t s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ; 
or 
( i i i ) 
i n the case of a t r u s t whose p r i n c i p a l 
p l a c e o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i s i n a j u r i s d i c t i o n 
o t h e r 
than 
t h i s 
s t a t e , i n t h e county where t h e 
s e t t l o r 
r e s i d e d a t t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e t r u s t 
" 
In s u p p o r t o f t h e amended motion t o d i s m i s s , S t e w a r t and t h e 
F o u n d a t i o n s u b m i t t e d t h e a f f i d a v i t o f Donald W
. 
S t e w a r t i n 
w h i c h he s t a t e d t h a t he " e s t a b l i s h e d t h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t as 
s e t f o r t h i n t h e t r u s t document a t t a c h e d h e r e t o as E x h i b i t B." 
We n o t e , however, t h a t t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l does not c o n t a i n 
E x h i b i t B t o S t e w a r t ' s a f f i d a v i t o r any document t h a t 
p u r p o r t s 
t o be t h e t r u s t document. 
15 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
On September 10, B a t e s and Joyner f i l e d a f i r s t amended 
c o m p l a i n t i n w h i c h t h e y added a d d i t i o n a l d e f e n d a n t s and causes 
of 
a c t i o n . 
They c o n t i n u e d t o r e q u e s t an a c c o u n t i n g o f the 
s e t t l e m e n t 
p r o c e e d s 
i n a d d i t i o n 
t o an 
a c c o u n t i n g o f 
the 
A b e r n a t h y t r u s t p u r s u a n t t o § 19-3B-205, and t h e y a l l e g e d t h a t 
" [ t ] h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t F o u n d a t i o n i s a t r u s t o r g a n i z e d under 
the 
laws of the S t a t e o f New York and funded by p r o c e e d s from 
the 
s e t t l e m e n t f u n d s " i n the Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n . 
B a t e s and 
J o y n e r 
a l s o 
f i l e d 
on 
September 
10 
t h e i r 
memorandum 
i n 
o p p o s i t i o n t o S t e w a r t and the F o u n d a t i o n ' s amended m o t i o n t o 
d i s m i s s . 
On September 16, S t e w a r t and the F o u n d a t i o n f i l e d a 
response i n s u p p o r t of t h e i r amended m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . 
On September 20, Shaun E l s t o n , Donna A l l e n , 
and 
Tara 
Hunley, a l l of whom a l l e g e d t h a t t h e y are the mothers of minor 
c h i l d r e n who 
are b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f the A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t 
and 
whose 2010 
checks d i d not a r r i v e as s c h e d u l e d 
( h e r e i n a f t e r 
r e f e r r e d t o as "the i n t e r v e n o r s " ) , moved t o i n t e r v e n e i n the 
f i r s t a c t i o n . 
The i n t e r v e n o r s a t t a c h e d a p r o p o s e d c o m p l a i n t 
i n i n t e r v e n t i o n i n w h i c h t h e y a l l e g e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
"11. Shaun E l s t o n , as Mother and Next F r i e n d of 
Fernando Forbes and Deangelo F o r b e s , c o n t a c t e d the 
o f f i c e of Donald W. S t e w a r t on September 14, 2010 t o 
i n q u i r e about the checks t o h e r c h i l d r e n . 
She 
was 
a d v i s e d t h a t the money i n the A b e r n a t h y T r u s t had 
16 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
been ' f r o z e n ' because o f Mr. Bates and Mr. J o y n e r . 
Ms. 
E l s t o n 
asked b u t was n o t p r o v i d e d w i t h any 
paperwork showing t h a t t h e money had been 
' f r o z e n . ' 
"12. Donna A l l e n , as Mother and Next F r i e n d o f 
L o u j u a n 
A l l e n 
and Tacouya 
A l l e n , 
c o n t a c t e d t h e 
o f f i c e o f Donald W. S t e w a r t on September 14, 2010 
a f t e r she d i d n o t r e c e i v e 
t h e i r c h e c k s . 
She was 
a d v i s e d t h a t t h e checks were 'on h o l d ' because o f 
the 
l a w s u i t f i l e d by B a t e s and J o y n e r . 
"13. 
Tara Hunley, Mother and Next 
F r i e n d o f 
Joshua R e y n o l d s , c o n t a c t e d t h e o f f i c e o f Donald W
. 
S t e w a r t on September 16, 2010. 
She was t o l d 
t h a t 
the 
t r u s t f u n d had been 'put 
on h o l d ' because o f 
t h e 
l a w s u i t f i l e d by George Bates and a n o t h e r man. 
She 
was t o l d 
t h a t t h e l a w s u i t was p l a c e d a g a i n s t t h e 
A b e r n a t h y T r u s t Fund, and t h a t t h e t r u s t had p u t a 
h o l d on a l l funds because o f t h e s u i t . 
She was 
f u r t h e r 
a d v i s e d t h a t t h e h o l d would be 
r e l e a s e d 
'when a judge 
s e t t l e s t h e case o r t h e l a w s u i t i s 
dropped.' 
F i n a l l y , when Ms. Hunley asked why t h e 
p e o p l e who were e x p e c t i n g checks f o r t h e i r 
minor 
c h i l d r e n were n o t n o t i f i e d t h a t t h e t r u s t f u n d was 
on h o l d p r i o r t o t h e checks n o t b e i n g m a i l e d t h i s 
y e a r , she was t o l d by t h e employee o f Mr. S t e w a r t ' s 
o f f i c e 
t h a t 
'they d i d n o t have an answer t o t h a t 
q u e s t i o n . ' " 
On September 21, B a t e s and J o y n e r f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r 
an 
emergency h e a r i n g t o a p p o i n t a r e c e i v e r f o r t h e A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t o r f o r 
o t h e r r e l i e f . 
That motion a l l e g e d , f o r t h e f i r s t 
t i m e , t h a t , " [ d ] e s p i t e r e q u e s t s t o 
t h e c u r r e n t t r u s t e e s by 
t h e 
b e n e f i c i a r i e s 
f o r a c c o u n t i n g o r even 
f o r c o p i e s o f t h e 
A b e r n a t h y T r u s t i t s e l f , t h e c u r r e n t t r u s t e e s have r e f u s e d t o  
p r o v i d e t o t h e b e n e f i c i a r i e s any a c c o u n t i n g o r even a copy o f 
17 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
the 
A b e r n a t h y 
T r u s t . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
A p o r t i o n o f t h e 
r e l i e f B a t e s and J o y n e r r e q u e s t e d was t h a t t h e c o u r t r e q u i r e 
S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n t o "[m]ake an immediate a c c o u n t i n g 
t o t h e [Monsanto] 
P l a i n t i f f s and I n t e r v e n o r s 
o f t h e A b e r n a t h y 
T r u s t a s s e t s , 
i n c l u d i n g , b u t not l i m i t e d t o , t h e immediate  
p r o d u c t i o n o f a copy o f t h e terms and c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e s a i d  
A b e r n a t h y T r u s t . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
On t h e f o l l o w i n g day, September 22, 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 S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n ' s motion 
t o d i s m i s s . 
The o r d e r d i d n o t s t a t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e a s o n 
f o r d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n , and t h e r e i s 
no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e 
o r d e r 
t h a t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
c o n s i d e r e d t h e m o t i o n f o r an 
emergency 
h e a r i n g , 
w h i c h 
a l l e g e d 
t h a t 
S t e w a r t 
and t h e 
F o u n d a t i o n had r e f u s e d t o 
p r o v i d e B a t e s and J o y n e r w i t h a copy 
of t h e t r u s t document. 
B a t e s and J o y n e r a p p e a l e d from t h e 
judgment o f d i s m i s s a l . 
B. The Second A c t i o n and t h e 
Mandamus P e t i t i o n 
On A p r i l 1, 2011, 
t h e 
Adams p l a i n t i f f s , a l l 
o f 
whom were 
Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s , and Kathy Faye Wynn
4 f i l e d t h e i r m o t i o n 
t o i n t e r v e n e , s e e k i n g t o reopen t h e 
2003 judgment i n 
t h a t case 
4Wynn was l a t e r d i s m i s s e d because she was n o t a Monsanto 
p l a i n t i f f . 
18 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
and r e q u e s t i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , an a c c o u n t i n g o f 
t h e funds 
i n 
s e t t l e m e n t 
o f t h e Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n , 
i n c l u d i n g t h e 
a t t o r n e y f e e s awarded and 
t h e 
d i s t r i b u t i o n s from t h e 
A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t . 
The Adams p l a i n t i f f s 
a l l e g e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t had 
never d e t e r m i n e d whether S a b r i n a A b e r n a t h y o r h e r a t t o r n e y s 
c o u l d 
" f a i r l y 
and 
a d e q u a t e l y " 
r e p r e s e n t 
t h e 
Monsanto 
p l a i n t i f f s ' 
i n t e r e s t s and had never h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e 
r e a s o n a b l e n e s s 
o f t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s awarded i n t h e Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
The Adams 
p l a i n t i f f s 
a l s o 
a l l e g e d t h a t t h e 
r e t a i n e r agreements e x e c u t e d by t h e Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s a r e 
v o i d because o f t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n : 
" [ I ] n 
t h e 
event 
t h e 
a t t o r n e y s 
n e g o t i a t e 
and 
recommend a c c e p t a n c e o f 
what t h e a t t o r n e y s , i n t h e i r 
s o l e d i s c r e t i o n , c o n s i d e r t o 
be a f a i r and e q u i t a b l e 
s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e c l a i m f o r w h i c h t h e a t t o r n e y s a r e 
hereby employed, and i f t h e c l i e n t r e f u s e s t o a c c e p t 
s a i d s e t t l e m e n t , t h e a t t o r n e y s s h a l l thereupon have 
the 
r i g h t t o w i t h d r a w from r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f s a i d 
c l i e n t and t h e c l i e n t 
s h a l l be i n d e b t e d t o s a i d 
a t t o r n e y s f o r 
t h e amount o f t h e a t t o r n e y s ' f e e s and 
c o s t s and expenses h e r e i n a b o v e 
p r o v i d e d based upon 
the 
o f f e r 
o f 
s e t t l e m e n t 
recommended 
by t h e 
a t t o r n e y s . " 
The 
Adams 
p l a i n t i f f s 
a s k e d t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t t o o r d e r an 
a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e e d s and o f t h e A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t , t o h o l d a h e a r i n g t o r e v i e w t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f 
t h e 
a t t o r n e y f e e 
i n 
t h e 
Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n , t o a p p o i n t a s p e c i a l 
19 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
master t o r e v i e w c l a i m s f o r b e n e f i t s from t h e 
A b e r n a t h y t r u s t 
t h a t had been d e n i e d by t h e F o u n d a t i o n , and t o remove Donald 
S t e w a r t as t r u s t e e o f t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , as 
t o t h e a t t o r n e y f e e , 
t h e Adams p l a i n t i f f s 
asked t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t t o r e q u i r e S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z t o submit an a p p l i c a t i o n 
f o r an a t t o r n e y f e e o r t o repay t h e a t t o r n e y f e e t h e y had 
a l r e a d y 
r e c e i v e d , t o a l l o w t h e Adams 
p l a i n t i f f s 
t o t a k e 
d i s c o v e r y r e g a r d i n g t h e f e e , and t o s c h e d u l e a p u b l i c h e a r i n g 
on t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s 
o f t h e r e q u e s t e d 
a t t o r n e y f e e . The 
Adams p l a i n t i f f s a l s o asked t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o s e t a s i d e t h e 
c o u r t ' s o r d e r i n 
t h e 
Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n awarding S t e w a r t and 
K a s o w i t z $15 m i l l i o n i n expenses. 
On August 22, 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 
a d d r e s s i n g t h e Adams p l a i n t i f f s ' 
m o t i o n . 
As t o t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e 
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 : 
" [ B ] a s e d on t h e a p p l i c a b l e law, t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h e 
A p r i l 27, 2011, 
h e a r i n g , and t h e f a c t s o f t h i s 
case, 
the C o u r t makes t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t : 
"1. T h i s C o u r t 
f i n d s t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y 
c l a i m s 
between t h e L i t i g a n t s and t h e Defendants have been 
a s c e r t a i n e d and adjudged and 
t h e 
a g r e e d upon amounts 
have been d i s b u r s e d t o t h e [Monsanto] P l a i n t i f f s . 
"2. T h i s C o u r t 
f i n d s t h a t t h e p e r s o n a l 
i n j u r y 
c l a i m s between t h e [Monsanto] 
P l a i n t i f f s 
and t h e 
Defendants have been a s c e r t a i n e d and adjudged and 
20 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
the agreed upon amounts have been d i s b u r s e d t o 
t h e 
[Monsanto] 
P l a i n t i f f s . 
"3. T h i s C o u r t 
f i n d s t h a t t h e funds p a i d and 
funds t o 
be p a i d i n t o t h e 
A b e r n a t h y T r u s t Fund have 
been a s c e r t a i n e d and adjudged. 
"4. 
T h i s 
C o u r t 
f i n d s 
t h a t 
t h e 
[Monsanto] 
P l a i n t i f f s ' 
c l a i m s f o r 
payments and t h e d e n i a l o f 
c l a i m s f o r 
payments from t h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t Fund 
have not been d e t e r m i n e d by t h e C o u r t and i n f a c t 
are 
b e i n g 
d e t e r m i n e d 
on an ongoing 
b a s i s by t h e 
A b e r n a t h y T r u s t Fund Board. 
" T h i s C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n s o f t h e 
A b e r n a t h y T r u s t B o a r d a r e n o t f i n a l judgments and 
are s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w by t h i s 
C o u r t . 
" I t i s 
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as 
f o l l o w s : 
"1. The p r o p e r t y 
s e t t l e m e n t 
p o r t i o n o f t h e 
p r e v i o u s 
o r d e r s 
e n t e r e d i n t h i s 
case i s a 
f i n a l 
judgment and t h e a p p e a l time has e x p i r e d . 
"2. The p e r s o n a l i n j u r y p o r t i o n o f t h e p r e v i o u s 
o r d e r s e n t e r e d i n t h i s case i s 
a f i n a l judgment and 
the a p p e a l time has e x p i r e d . 
"3. The T r u s t Fund p o r t i o n o f t h e p r e v i o u s 
o r d e r s e n t e r e d i n t h i s case i s 
a f i n a l judgment and 
the a p p e a l time has e x p i r e d . 
"4. The awards o r d e n i a l o f awards from t h e 
A b e r n a t h y T r u s t Fund a r e n o t f i n a l judgments. 
Any 
[Monsanto] P l a i n t i f f may f i l e a m o t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l 
r e v i e w o f h i s 
o r h e r award o r d e n i a l o f award from 
the T r u s t Fund Board. 
"5. A h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e 
m a t t e r o f 
t h e 
method 
of a l l o c a t i o n used by t h e 
A b e r n a t h y T r u s t Fund B o a r d 
i n 
d e t e r m i n i n g t h e g r a n t i n g o r d e n y i n g o f c l a i m s 
21 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
s h a l l be h e l d on September 9, 2011 a t 1:30 p.m. i n 
c o u r t r o o m 250. 
The purpose o f t h e h e a r i n g i s f o r 
the 
C o u r t t o be e d u c a t e d on t h e f o r m u l a 
used t o 
i s s u e 
awards 
and 
the 
p r o c e s s 
o f 
t h e 
same. 
[Monsanto] 
P l a i n t i f f s ' 
c o u n s e l 
s h a l l 
p r e s e n t 
t e s t i m o n y 
and d o c u m e n t a t i o n i n s u p p o r t 
o f 
t h e i r 
method o f a l l o c a t i o n . " 
As 
t o t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
t o r e v i e w t h e 
a t t o r n e y - f e e award, t h e t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d : 
" [ A ] f t e r h e a r i n g and a f t e r r e v i e w i n g a l l p l e a d i n g s , 
a l l 
c o u r t 
o r d e r s , 
t h e 
c o u r t 
f i l e , 
and 
a f t e r 
c o n s i d e r i n g a l l 
a p p l i c a b l e law, t h i s C o u r t makes t h e 
f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t : 
"1. 
The 
C o u r t 
has 
e q u i t a b l e 
and 
i n h e r e n t 
a u t h o r i t y over t h e g l o b a l s e t t l e m e n t and over t h e 
p a r t i e s and a t t o r n e y s . 
"2. 
The 
C o u r t 
has 
e q u i t a b l e 
and 
i n h e r e n t 
a u t h o r i t y t o r e v i e w t h e c o n t i n g e n c y f e e c o n t r a c t s o f 
the [Monsanto] P l a i n t i f f s and t h e a t t o r n e y s . 
"3. The C o u r t has r e t a i n e d 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
over 
t h i s case f o r 
t h e purpose o f t h e enforcement o f t h e 
s e t t l e m e n t agreement and the judgment. 
"4. 
The 
C o u r t 
f i n d s 
t h a t 
t h e 
I n t e r v e n e r s ' 
a l l e g a t i o n s 
c o n t a i n e d 
i n t h e r e q u e s t 
f o r r e l i e f 
r e g a r d i n g t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s 
o f a t t o r n e y f e e s t o be 
e x t r a o r d i n a r y and e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , 
w h i c h 
i f p r o v e n would be an extreme 
i n j u s t i c e . 
"5. 
The 
C o u r t 
f i n d s 
t h a t 
t h e 
I n t e r v e n e r s ' 
r e q u e s t f o r r e l i e f 
s h o u l d be t r e a t e d as a 
r e q u e s t 
f o r 
r e l i e f from judgment under t h e Alabama R u l e s o f 
C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , R u l e 
6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) . 
"6. 
The 
C o u r t 
f i n d s 
t h a t 
each 
[Monsanto] 
P l a i n t i f f s h o u l d be s e r v e d w i t h n o t i f i c a t i o n o f t h i s 
22 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
a c t i o n and g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o 
be heard, w i t h o r 
w i t h o u t 
c o u n s e l , 
o r t o waive 
t h e i r 
r i g h t 
t o 
p a r t i c i p a t e i n s a i d h e a r i n g . 
" I t i s 
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as 
f o l l o w s : 
"1. The a t t o r n e y s s h a l l each submit t o 
t h e C o u r t 
f o r 
r e v i e w 
a p r o p o s e d 
n o t i f i c a t i o n 
o f r i g h t t o 
h e a r i n g and a w a i v e r o f r i g h t t o h e a r i n g on t h e 
i s s u e o f r e a s o n a b l e n e s s 
o f a t t o r n e y 
f e e s t o be 
s e r v e d 
t o 
a l l [Monsanto] 
p l a i n t i f f s . 
S a i d 
s u b m i s s i o n 
s h a l l be f i l e d on September 9, 
2011. 
"2. The [Monsanto] P l a i n t i f f s ' 
a t t o r n e y s 
s h a l l 
submit any known a d d r e s s changes t o t h e l i s t o f 
a l l 
[Monsanto] p l a i n t i f f s and a d d r e s s e s p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d 
on 
September 
16, 
2003 
f o r s e r v i c e 
o f 
s a i d 
n o t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e C i r c u i t C l e r k o f Etowah County. 
S a i d s u b m i s s i o n 
s h a l l be f i l e d on September 9, 
2011. 
"3. The C l e r k o f C o u r t o f Etowah County 
s h a l l 
cause t h e n o t i f i c a t i o n 
t o be s e r v e d t o a l l l a s t 
known 
a d d r e s s e s 
on 
f i l e 
o f 
each 
[Monsanto] 
P l a i n t i f f . 
"4. The c o s t s o f s a i d n o t i f i c a t i o n s h a l l be p a i d 
from t h e 
A b e r n a t h y T r u s t Fund p e n d i n g f u r t h e r o r d e r s 
of 
t h e C o u r t . 
C o s t s 
s h a l l 
i n c l u d e 
p o s t a g e , 
s u p p l i e s , and temporary 
s t a f f , 
i f n e c e s s a r y , t o 
a c c o m p l i s h t h e assignment. 
"5. A h e a r i n g 
date 
s h a l l be s e t by 
s e p a r a t e 
o r d e r upon c o m p l e t i o n o f s e r v i c e o f a l l [Monsanto] 
P l a i n t i f f s . " 
As t o 
t h e i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g t h e 
A b e r n a t h y t r u s t , t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t s t a t e d : 
"1. 
The 
C o u r t 
f i n d s 
t h a t 
t h e I n t e r v e n e r s ' 
r e q u e s t 
f o r f r e e z i n g o f t h e 
t r u s t 
a s s e t s i s 
23 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
a p p r o p r i a t e p e n d i n g t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e a u d i t and 
the h e a r i n g on t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e a t t o r n e y 
f e e s . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
t h e r e 
i s no 
need 
f o r a 
c o n s t r u c t i v e 
t r u s t . 
"2. 
The 
C o u r t 
f i n d s 
t h a t t h e I n t e r v e n e r s ' 
r e q u e s t 
f o r removal 
o f Donald 
S t e w a r t 
as 
t r u s t 
a d m i n i s t r a t o r 
i s w i t h o u t 
any e v i d e n c e 
t h a t Mr. 
S t e w a r t has m i s h a n d l e d t h e t r u s t . 
"3. The Court f i n d s t h a t t h e r e i s 
no need f o r a 
S p e c i a l Master as t h e Court 
s h a l l hear a l l m a t t e r s 
n e c e s s a r y . 
" I t i s 
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as 
f o l l o w s : 
"1. The I n t e r v e n e r s ' r e q u e s t f o r removal o f 
Donald S t e w a r t from t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 
o f t h e T r u s t 
i s hereby 
d e n i e d . 
"2. The a s s e t s o f 
t h e 
A b e r n a t h y T r u s t a r e hereby 
f r o z e n . 
The C o u r t o r d e r s a l l 
payments t o m i n o r s t o 
c o n t i n u e as s c h e d u l e d , i f 
any, and any u n s c h e d u l e d 
payments s h a l l n o t be made u n t i l 
f u r t h e r o r d e r s o f 
t h i s C o u r t . 
"3. The d e p o s i t s e x p e c t e d no l a t e r than August 
26, 2011, i n c l u d i n g amounts a l l o c a t e d f o r a t t o r n e y 
f e e s , 
s h a l l 
be 
d e p o s i t e d 
and 
s h a l l 
n o t be 
d i s t r i b u t e d u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r s o f t h i s C o u r t . 
"4. The I n t e r v e n e r s ' r e q u e s t s f o r an appointment 
of a S p e c i a l M a s t e r and c r e a t i o n o f a c o n s t r u c t i v e 
t r u s t a r e hereby 
d e n i e d . " 
Moreover, t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t c e r t a i n r e c o r d s o f 
the A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t be u n s e a l e d . 
Those r e c o r d s i n c l u d e d an 
a c c o u n t i n g 
f i r m ' s r e p o r t t h a t c o n t a i n e d t h e names o f t h e 
24 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
Monsanto 
p l a i n t i f f s 
and 
t h e i r 
c o r r e s p o n d i n g 
P C B - r e l a t e d 
m e d i c a l o r e d u c a t i o n a l 
(e.g., 
l e a r n i n g - d i s a b i l i t y ) 
problems, 
as w e l l as t h e 
payments t h e y had r e c e i v e d from t h e A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t . 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z f i l e d a motion t o v a c a t e t h e August 
22 
o r d e r . 
The t r i a l 
c o u r t 
o r a l l y d e n i e d 
t h a t m o t i o n a t a 
h e a r i n g h e l d on September 9. The t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e 
p r o c e s s o f m a i l i n g t h e n o t i c e s t o t h e Monsanto 
p l a i n t i f f s 
would b e g i n on September 13. The t r i a l c o u r t a g r e e d t o a l l o w 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z t o r e d a c t 
c e r t a i n 
m e d i c a l 
i n f o r m a t i o n 
from 
t h e r e c o r d s 
on 
f i l e 
w i t h 
t h e c o u r t 
so 
t h a t t h e 
i n f o r m a t i o n would c o n t a i n t h e 
names o f a d u l t s who had r e c e i v e d 
payments from t h e 
A b e r n a t h y t r u s t f o r 
P C B - r e l a t e d 
m e d i c a l o r 
e d u c a t i o n a l problems, b u t 
n o t t h e i r s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n s o r t h e 
amount t h e y r e c e i v e d . 
The t r i a l 
c o u r t d i r e c t e d S t e w a r t and 
K a s o w i t z t o 
p r o v i d e t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n by September 13. S t e w a r t 
and 
K a s o w i t z a p p e a l e d from t h e August 22 and September 9 
o r d e r s 
on t h e b a s i s 
t h a t 
t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
had 
g r a n t e d 
i n j u n c t i v e 
r e l i e f 
t o t h e Adams 
p l a i n t i f f s . 
S t e w a r t and 
K a s o w i t z a l s o f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r 
a w r i t o f mandamus a s k i n g 
t h i s C o u r t t o r e q u i r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s August 22 
25 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
and September 9 o r d e r s and 
t o s t a y f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e 
t r i a l c o u r t p e n d i n g t h e 
outcome o f 
t h e 
mandamus p r o c e e d i n g . 
T h i s C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e 
motion f o r a s t a y and o r d e r e d answer 
and 
b r i e f s . 
I I . S t a n d a r d s o f Review 
A. A p p e a l i n 
t h e 
F i r s t A c t i o n (No. 
1100063) 
In P o n t i u s v. S t a t e Farm M u t u a l A u t o m o b i l e I n s u r a n c e 
Co., 
915 So. 2d 557, 563 ( A l a . 2005), 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
s t a t e d t h e 
s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e t o a r u l i n g on a motion t o 
d i s m i s s an a c t i o n f o r a l a c k o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n : 
"In Newman v. Savas, 878 So. 2d 1147 ( A l a . 
2003), t h i s C o u r t s e t o u t 
t h e 
s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w 
o f 
a 
r u l i n g 
on a motion 
t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k o f 
s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n : 
"'A 
r u l i n g on a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s 
i s 
r e v i e w e d 
w i t h o u t 
a 
p r e s u m p t i o n 
o f 
c o r r e c t n e s s . 
Nance v. 
Matthews, 622 
So. 2d 
297, 299 ( A l a . 1993) . 
T h i s C o u r t must 
a c c e p t the a l l e g a t i o n s o f the c o m p l a i n t 
as 
t r u e . 
C r e o l a Land Dev., I n c . v. Bentbrooke 
T T ^ - , - , ^ - ; v - ^ ^ 
T 
T 
o o o 
Housing, L.L.C., 828 
So. 
2d 285, 288 ( A l a . 
2002). 
F u r t h e r m o r e , i n 
r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g 
on a motion t o 
d i s m i s s 
we w i l l not c o n s i d e r 
whether the p l e a d e r w i l l u l t i m a t e l y 
p r e v a i l 
b u t 
whether 
t h e p l e a d e r may 
p o s s i b l y 
p r e v a i l . 
Nance, 622 
So. 
2d 
a t 299.' 
"878 So. 
2d 
a t 1148-49." 
26 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
See a l s o Ex p a r t e Alabama Dep't o f Transp., 978 So. 2d 17, 21 
( A l a . 2007). 
B. A p p e a l i n 
t h e Second A c t i o n (No. 1101456) 
When 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
r e v i e w s 
t h e g r a n t 
o r 
d e n i a l 
o f a 
p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n , "'[w]e r e v i e w t h e [ t r i a l ] 
[ c ] o u r t ' s 
l e g a l r u l i n g s de novo and i t s u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n t o i s s u e t h e 
p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n f o r [an e x c e s s ] 
o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' " 
H o l i d a y 
I s l e , LLC v. A d k i n s , 12 So. 3d 1173, 1176 ( A l a . 2008) 
( q u o t i n g G o n z a l e s v. O C e n t r o E s p i r i t a B e n e f i c e n t e 
Uniao do 
V e g e t a l , 546 U.S. 418, 428, 
(2006)). 
"A p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d be i s s u e d o n l y 
when t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g an i n j u n c t i o n d e m o n s t r a t e s : 
"'"(1) 
t h a t 
w i t h o u t t h e i n j u n c t i o n t h e 
[ p a r t y ] would 
s u f f e r i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y ; 
(2) t h a t t h e [ p a r t y ] has no adequate remedy 
a t law; (3) t h a t t h e [ p a r t y ] has a t l e a s t 
a 
r e a s o n a b l e 
chance o f s u c c e s s on t h e 
u l t i m a t e m e r i t s o f h i s case; and (4) t h a t 
the h a r d s h i p imposed on t h e [ p a r t y o p p o s i n g 
the 
p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n ] 
by 
t h e 
i n j u n c t i o n would n o t u n r e a s o n a b l y outweigh 
the b e n e f i t a c c r u i n g t o t h e [ p a r t y 
s e e k i n g 
the i n j u n c t i o n ] . " ' " 
H o l i d a y 
I s l e , 12 So. 3d a t 1176 ( q u o t i n g Ormco Corp. v. Johns, 
869 So. 2d 1109, 1113 ( A l a . 2003), q u o t i n g i n t u r n P e r l e y v. 
Tapscan, I n c . , 646 So. 2d 585, 587 ( A l a . 1994) ( a l t e r a t i o n s i n 
H o l i d a y 
I s l e ) ) . 
27 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
C. Mandamus P e t i t i o n (No. 1101452) 
"'Mandamus i s 
a d r a s t i c and e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , 
t o be i s s u e d o n l y where t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r 
l e g a l 
r i g h t i n 
t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r sought; (2) 
an 
i m p e r a t i v e 
d u t y upon t h e respondent t o p e r f o r m , 
accompanied by a r e f u s a l t o do so; (3) t h e l a c k o f 
a n o t h e r adequate remedy; and (4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d 
j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . ' " 
Ex p a r t e P e r f e c t i o n S i d i n g , I n c . , 
882 So. 2d 307, 309-10 
( A l a . 
2003) 
( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e I n t e g o n Corp., 672 So. 2d 497, 499 
( A l a . 
1 9 9 5 ) ) . 
"'A p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus i s a 
p r o p e r method f o r a t t a c k i n g t h e g r a n t o f a R u l e 
60(b) m o t i o n . ' 
Ex p a r t e A & B Transp., I n c . , 
8 So. 
3d 924, 931 ( A l a . 2007). 
'In g e n e r a l , t h e d e c i s i o n 
whether t o g r a n t o r t o deny a postjudgment 
motion 
f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o ... R u l e 60 i s w i t h i n t h e sound 
d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t , and t h e e x e r c i s e o f 
t h a t d i s c r e t i o n w i l l n o t 
be d i s t u r b e d ... u n l e s s 
t h e 
t r i a l c o u r t [exceeded] i t s d i s c r e t i o n . ' 
Comalander 
 
v. Spottswood, 846 So. 2d 1086, 1090 ( A l a . 2002). 
However, '[a] 
p a r t y s e e k i n g r e l i e f must b o t h a l l e g e 
and prove one o f t h e grounds s e t f o r t h i n 
R u l e 60 
i n 
o r d e r t o be g r a n t e d r e l i e f under 
t h a t 
r u l e . ' 
Ex 
 
p a r t e American Res. I n s . 
Co., 663 So. 2d 932, 936 
( A l a . 
1995). 
Thus, where a 
'Rule 60(b) motion 
o f f e r [ s ] no p r o p e r b a s i s f o r g r a n t i n g 
r e l i e f 
from 
the judgment, ... t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s g r a n t i n g o f t h a t 
m o t i o n 
[exceeds i t s ] d i s c r e t i o n . ' 
Ex p a r t e 
A l f a  
Mut. Gen. I n s . Co., 681 So. 2d 1047, 1050 
( A l a . 
1996)." 
Ex p a r t e W a l l a c e , J o r d a n , R a t l i f f & B r a n d t , L.L.C., 29 So. 3d 
175, 177-78 ( A l a . 2009). 
28 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
I I I . 
A n a l y s i s 
A. The 
F i r s t A c t i o n 
We 
f i r s t 
a d d r e s s 
whether 
t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e r r e d i n 
g r a n t i n g 
S t e w a r t 
and 
the 
F o u n d a t i o n ' s 
motion 
t o 
d i s m i s s 
p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 
B a t e s and J o y n e r 
c o n t e n d t h a t because the Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t had 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
over the Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n and e n t e r e d a l l o r d e r s i n the 
Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n i n Etowah County, the Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t 
has 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
over a l l m a t t e r s 
r e l a t e d t o the 
A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t . 
Moreover, B a t e s and J o y n e r argue, t h e i r c o m p l a i n t was 
p r o p e r l y 
f i l e d 
as 
an 
a c t i o n 
independent 
o f 
the 
Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n because the causes of a c t i o n t h e y a s s e r t e d a r o s e 
a f t e r the Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n had been c o n c l u d e d . 
B a t e s and 
J o y n e r 
a l s o 
argue 
t h a t 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
r e t e n t i o n 
of 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
i n 
the 
Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n 
t o 
e n f o r c e 
the 
s e t t l e m e n t agreement d i d n o t p r e c l u d e them from 
f i l i n g 
a 
c o m p l a i n t f o r an a c c o u n t i n g o f the A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t 
i n t h e 
Etowah C i r c u i t 
C o u r t . 
S t e w a r t and the F o u n d a t i o n argue t h a t when a t r i a l c o u r t 
p r e s i d e s over the s e t t l e m e n t of a case and r e s e r v e s c o n t i n u i n g 
j u r i s d i c t i o n over the s e t t l e m e n t , as the 
t r i a l c o u r t d i d i n 
29 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
the Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n , independent a c t i o n s c h a l l e n g i n g t h e 
s e t t l e m e n t 
must be 
d i s m i s s e d f o r l a c k 
o f 
j u r i s d i c t i o n . 
S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n contend t h a t i n f i l i n g t h e 
f i r s t 
a c t i o n 
B a t e s 
and 
J o y n e r 
a t t e m p t e d 
t o 
f i l e 
such 
an 
i m p e r m i s s i b l e 
independent 
a c t i o n 
o u t s i d e 
t h e 
Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
R e l y i n g on Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l 
I n s u r a n c e  
Co., 888 So. 2d 478 ( A l a . 
2003), and Solomon v. 
L i b e r t y  
N a t i o n a l 
L i f e 
I n s u r a n c e Co., 953 So. 2d 1211 ( A l a . 2006), 
S t e w a r t and t h e F o u n d a t i o n argue t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y 
d i s m i s s e d 
t h e 
f i r s t 
a c t i o n 
f o r l a c k 
o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n . 
In L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l , t h e p l a i n t i f f s sued L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l 
i n t h e 
Choctaw C i r c u i t C o u r t . A l l 
t h e p l a i n t i f f s were members 
of a c l a s s 
c e r t i f i e d i n 
Adams v. R o b e r t s o n , 676 So. 2d 1265 
( A l a . 1995), a c l a s s a c t i o n f i l e d i n 
t h e 
Barbour C i r c u i t C o u r t 
t h a t i n v o l v e d over 400,000 p l a i n t i f f s who had p u r c h a s e d c a n c e r 
i n s u r a n c e from L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l L i f e I n s u r a n c e Company. 
The 
case 
was 
s e t t l e d , 
t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
approved 
a m o d i f i e d 
s e t t l e m e n t , and t h e judgment was a f f i r m e d by t h i s 
C o u r t i n 
R o b e r t s o n . 
The t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r c o n t a i n e d t h e f o l l o w i n g 
p r o v i s i o n 
i n which 
t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
r e t a i n e d 
c o n t i n u i n g 
30 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
over 
m a t t e r s 
" r e l a t i n g 
t o " 
the 
R o b e r t s o n 
s e t t l e m e n t and the enforcement of t h a t s e t t l e m e n t . 
"[The 
Barbour 
C i r c u i t 
Court 
r e t a i n e d ] 
c o n t i n u i n g 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
over 
a l l m a t t e r s 
r e l a t i n g 
t o 
the 
S e t t l e m e n t 
or the consummation of the 
S e t t l e m e n t ; 
the v a l i d i t y of the S e t t l e m e n t ; the c o n s t r u c t i o n and 
enforcement of the S e t t l e m e n t and any o r d e r s e n t e r e d 
p u r s u a n t 
t h e r e t o ; 
... 
and 
a l l 
o t h e r 
m a t t e r s 
p e r t a i n i n g t o the S e t t l e m e n t 
or i t s 
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n 
and e n f o r c e m e n t . " 
R o b e r t s o n , 
676 So. 2d a t 1307 
( q u o t i n g the t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r 
a t t a c h e d t o o p i n i o n ) . T h i s Court 
c o n c l u d e d 
t h a t the Choctaw 
County a c t i o n i n v o l v e d m a t t e r s 
" r e l a t i n g 
t o " the 
R o b e r t s o n 
s e t t l e m e n t 
and 
i t s enforcement and 
t h a t the Choctaw County 
a c t i o n 
sought 
t o 
a t t a c k 
s e v e r a l a s p e c t s 
of 
the 
R o b e r t s o n 
s e t t l e m e n t t h a t had been l i t i g a t e d a t a f a i r n e s s h e a r i n g 
and 
t h a t had been approved by the t r i a l c o u r t . 
The C o u r t h e l d as 
f o l l o w s : 
" T h i s 
type 
of 
c o l l a t e r a l 
a t t a c k 
i s 
not 
p e r m i t t e d . 
The 
boundary 
l i n e s 
between 
c o u r t s 
of 
c o n c u r r e n t 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
must 
be 
p r e s e r v e d . 
'"'[W]here 
two 
c o u r t s have 
e q u a l 
and 
c o n c u r r e n t 
j u r i s d i c t i o n , 
the 
c o u r t 
t h a t 
f i r s t commences 
the 
e x e r c i s e 
of i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n 
i n a m a t t e r 
has 
the 
p r e f e r e n c e 
and 
i s not 
t o 
be 
o b s t r u c t e d 
i n 
the 
l e g i t i m a t e 
e x e r c i s e of 
i t s powers by 
a c o u r t 
of 
c o o r d i n a t e 
j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' " ' 
Ex p a r t e 
F i r s t N a t ' l  
Bank of 
J a s p e r , 
717 
So. 
2d 
342, 
350 
( A l a . 
1997) 
( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 
631 
So. 
2d 
865, 
867 
( A l a . 1993), q u o t i n g 
i n t u r n 
Ex 
 
p a r t e S t a t e ex r e l . U s s e r y , 
285 A l a . 279, 
281, 
231 
So. 2d 314, 
315 
( 1 9 7 0 ) ) . " 
31 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l , 
888 
So. 
2d 
a t 481. 
The 
L i b e r t y 
N a t i o n a l 
C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t the Choctaw County a c t i o n was 
an attempt 
" t o a t t a c k 
c o l l a t e r a l l y i n a n o t h e r c i r c u i t c o u r t p o r t i o n s 
of 
the 
R o b e r t s o n 
s e t t l e m e n t , " 
i d . , and 
h e l d 
t h a t 
the 
Choctaw 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t 
d i d 
not 
have 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
t o 
hear 
the 
p l a i n t i f f s ' 
a c t i o n , w h i c h was 
i n essence an 
a t t a c k 
on 
the 
R o b e r t s o n 
s e t t l e m e n t . 
In Solomon, the same p l a i n t i f f s who 
f i l e d the 
Choctaw 
County a c t i o n f i l e d an i d e n t i c a l a c t i o n i n the Barbour 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t . 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
c o n s o l i d a t e d 
the newly f i l e d a c t i o n 
w i t h 
the R o b e r t s o n a c t i o n , d e s i g n a t e d t h e s e p l a i n t i f f s as 
a 
s u b c l a s s 
i n R o b e r t s o n , and e n t e r e d a f i n a l judgment a p p r o v i n g 
a s e t t l e m e n t 
of the s u b c l a s s ' s 
c l a i m s . 
T h i s C o u r t h e l d : 
"[T]he 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
sua 
sponte 
' c o n s o l i d a t i o n ' 
o r d e r 
d i d 
not 
change 
the 
s t a t u s 
of 
case 
no. 
CV-03-137 
[the 
newly 
f i l e d 
a c t i o n ] 
from 
an 
independent 
a c t i o n 
t o 
a 
p r o p e r l y 
b r o u g h t 
a c t i o n 
w i t h i n 
the 
Barbour 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t ' s 
c o n t i n u i n g 
j u r i s d i c t i o n under case no. CV-92-021 
[ R o b e r t s o n ] . 
C o n s e q u e n t l y , 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
d i d 
not 
have 
s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n over case no. CV-03-137, 
and 
i t s o r d e r of c o n s o l i d a t i o n was 
v o i d — 
i n d e e d , 
any a c t i o n i t took i n case no. CV-03-137, o t h e r than 
a d i s m i s s a l of the c l a i m s , was 
v o i d . " 
953 
So. 
2d a t 
1222. 
A f t e r r e v i e w i n g Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l and Solomon, as 
w e l l 
as 
the 
o t h e r 
a u t h o r i t y 
c i t e d 
by 
S t e w a r t 
and 
the 
32 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
F o u n d a t i o n , 
we c o n c l u d e 
t h a t the r e s e r v a t i o n o f c o n t i n u i n g 
j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n f o r c e t h e s e t t l e m e n t agreement by t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t i n the Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n p r e c l u d e s the c l a i m s added by 
B a t e s and Joyner i n t h e i r 
f i r s t amended c o m p l a i n t and 
t h e i r 
r e q u e s t f o r an a c c o u n t i n g of t h e s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e e d s , b u t 
i t 
does n o t p r e c l u d e 
t h e i r 
r e q u e s t 
f o r an a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e 
A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t . 
T h i s C o u r t d i s c u s s e d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n i n Ex 
p a r t e Seymour, 946 So. 2d 536 ( A l a . 
2006): 
" J u r i s d i c t i o n i s '[a] c o u r t ' s power t o d e c i d e a 
case or i s s u e a d e c r e e . ' 
B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 867 
(8th 
ed. 
2004) . 
S u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
concerns a c o u r t ' s power t o d e c i d e c e r t a i n t y p e s of 
c a s e s . 
Woolf v. McGaugh, 175 A l a . 
299, 303, 57 So. 
754, 
755 
(1911) 
('"By 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
over 
the 
s u b j e c t - m a t t e r i s meant t h e n a t u r e of t h e cause o f 
a c t i o n and of the r e l i e f sought."' 
( q u o t i n g Cooper  
v. R e y n o l d s , 77 U.S. (10 W a l l . ) 308, 316, ( 1 8 7 0 ) ) ) . 
That power i s d e r i v e d from t h e Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n 
and t h e Alabama Code. 
See U n i t e d S t a t e s v. C o t t o n , 
535 
U.S. 
625, 
630-31 
(2002) 
( s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
r e f e r s 
t o a 
c o u r t ' s 
' s t a t u t o r y o r 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l power' t o a d j u d i c a t e a c a s e ) . " 
946 So. 2d a t 538. 
In 
Alabama, a 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
" s h a l l 
e x e r c i s e 
g e n e r a l 
j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a l l 
cases e x c e p t as may be o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d 
by 
l a w . " 
§ 1 4 2 ( b ) , 
A l a . Const. 
of 1901 
( O f f . Recomp.). 
S e c t i o n 19-3B-203, A l a . 
Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t , g e n e r a l l y , 
33 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
"the c i r c u i t c o u r t has e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n of p r o c e e d i n g s 
i n t h i s s t a t e b r o u g h t by a t r u s t e e or b e n e f i c i a r y c o n c e r n i n g 
the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a t r u s t . " 
P u r s u a n t t o § 19-3B-205(a), 
A l a . Code 1975, "upon p e t i t i o n of an i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y , a c o u r t 
may o r d e r a t r u s t e e t o r e n d e r an a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e t r u s t e e ' s 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a t r u s t 
" 
As b e n e f i c i a r i e s of t h e 
A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t , 
B a t e s 
and J o y n e r 
c l e a r l y 
a r e 
i n t e r e s t e d 
p a r t i e s who 
had t h e 
r i g h t 
t o b r i n g an 
a c t i o n 
s e e k i n g an 
a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t . 
We c o n c l u d e , 
t h e r e f o r e , 
t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t had s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e 
r e q u e s t 
f o r an 
a c c o u n t i n g 
of 
t h e 
A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t ; i t s 
d i s m i s s a l of t h a t c l a i m was 
e r r o r . 
The judgment o f d i s m i s s a l i s hereby r e v e r s e d as t o B a t e s 
and J o y n e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r 
an a c c o u n t i n g of t h e A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t , 
and t h e case i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s 
c o n s i s t e n t 
w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . 
As t o t h e o t h e r c l a i m s a l l e g e d by B a t e s 
and J o y n e r c o n c e r n i n g m a t t e r s o t h e r than the a c c o u n t i n g of t h e 
A b e r n a t h y t r u s t , t h o s e c l a i m s must be b r o u g h t i n t h e Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n , and we a f f i r m the Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l 
of t h e case as t o a l l 
c l a i m s o t h e r than t h e a c c o u n t i n g of t h e 
A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t . 
34 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
Because we have r e s o l v e d t h e a p p e a l i n t h e f i r s t 
a c t i o n 
b a s e d 
on R u l e 
1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) , we p r e t e r m i t t h e p a r t i e s ' 
o t h e r 
arguments as t o t h i s a p p e a l . 
B. The Second A c t i o n 
The Adams p l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t t h e second a c t i o n s h o u l d 
be d i s m i s s e d because, 
t h e y argue, S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z have 
a p p e a l e d from a n o n f i n a l judgment. 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z argue 
t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r s o f August 22 and September 9 
a r e 
i n j u n c t i v e i n n a t u r e and t h a t , 
t h e r e f o r e , 
t h e i r 
a p p e a l i s 
p r o p e r . 
T h i s C o u r t a d d r e s s e d a s i m i l a r o r d e r and a p p e a l i n 
Kappa Sigma 
F r a t e r n i t y v. P r i c e - W i l l i a m s , 
40 So. 3d 683, 
689-90 ( A l a . 2009). 
The C o u r t i n Kappa Sigma n o t e d t h a t an 
i n j u n c t i o n i s d e f i n e d as " ' [ a ] c o u r t o r d e r commanding o r 
p r e v e n t i n g an a c t i o n . ' " 
(Quoting B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 788 
(7th 
ed. 1999).) 
Because t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s o r d e r i n Kappa  
Sigma commanded t h e p a r t i e s t o t a k e 
s p e c i f i c 
a c t i o n , 
t h i s 
C o u r t h e l d t h a t i t 
had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r t h e a p p e a l , 
even though t h e o r d e r a p p e a l e d from was n o t a f i n a l judgment. 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s August 
22 and September 9 o r d e r s 
commanded t h e t r u s t e e o f t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t t o t a k e s p e c i f i c 
a c t i o n -- t o s t o p making c e r t a i n payments c o n t e m p l a t e d by 
t h e 
t r u s t and t o r e l e a s e c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n . 
Because t h e August 
35 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
22 and September 9 o r d e r s c l e a r l y command t h e t r u s t e e t o t a k e 
a c t i o n , we c o n c l u d e t h a t i t 
i s i n j u n c t i v e i n n a t u r e . 
See 
Dawkins v. Walker, 794 So. 2d 333, 335 ( A l a . 2001) . 
R u l e 
4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , A l a . R. App. P., e x p r e s s l y p e r m i t s a p p e a l s 
from 
o r d e r s 
" g r a n t i n g , 
c o n t i n u i n g , 
m o d i f y i n g , 
r e f u s i n g , 
o r 
d i s s o l v i n g an i n j u n c t i o n , o r r e f u s i n g t o d i s s o l v e o r 
t o m o d i f y 
an 
i n j u n c t i o n . " 
T h e r e f o r e , t h i s C o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n t o 
c o n s i d e r t h e a p p e a l i n t h e second 
a c t i o n even though t h e 
August 22 and September 9 o r d e r s a r e 
n o t f i n a l 
judgments. 
N e v e r t h e l e s s , our r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e p e t i t i o n f o r 
a w r i t 
of mandamus makes t h e i s s u e s 
r a i s e d i n t h e a p p e a l i n 
t h e 
second a c t i o n moot, and t h a t a p p e a l i s t h e r e f o r e due t o be 
d i s m i s s e d . 
C. The Mandamus P e t i t i o n 
1. Order o f August 22, 
2011 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z 
f i r s t ask t h i s C o u r t t o d i r e c t t h e 
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 o f August 22, 2011. 
They 
c o n t e n d t h a t t h e 
r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f 
t h e 
a t t o r n e y f e e 
awarded 
i n 
the Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n was s e t t l e d i n 
t h e f i n a l judgment i n 
t h a t 
l i t i g a t i o n e n t e r e d i n 2003. 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z say 
t h a t d e s p i t e t h e Adams p l a i n t i f f s ' 
e f f o r t s t o c h a r a c t e r i z e 
t h e i r 
argument 
d i f f e r e n t l y , 
t h e Adams 
p l a i n t i f f s 
a r e 
36 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
c h a l l e n g i n g a f i n a l judgment e n t e r e d i n 2003, a judgment the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t had no a u t h o r i t y t o reopen. 
In Helms v. Helms'  
K e n n e l s , 
I n c . , 646 So. 2d 1343, 
1347 
( A l a . 1994), t h i s C o u r t 
q u o t e d the f o l l o w i n g from 
U n i t e d S t a t e s v. C i r a m i , 563 
F.2d 
26, 33 
(2d C i r . 1977): 
" ' [ L ] i t i g a t i o n must end somewhere, and we 
r e i t e r a t e 
our f i r m b e l i e f t h a t c o u r t s s h o u l d not encourage the 
r e o p e n i n g 
of f i n a l judgments or c a s u a l l y p e r m i t 
the 
r e l i t i g a t i o n 
of 
l i t i g a t e d 
i s s u e s 
out 
of 
a 
f r i e n d l i n e s s 
t o c l a i m s 
of u n f o r t u n a t e 
f a i l u r e s 
t o 
put i n one's b e s t 
c a s e . ' " 
S t e w a r t and 
K a s o w i t z contend t h a t n e i t h e r R u l e 
6 0 ( b ) , 
A l a . 
R. 
C i v . P., 
nor the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s " i n h e r e n t a u t h o r i t y " 
a l l o w s 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
t o reopen the Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
R u l e 60(b) 
s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
"On 
m o t i o n and upon such terms as 
are 
j u s t , 
the 
c o u r t 
may 
r e l i e v e 
a 
p a r t y 
or 
the 
p a r t y ' s 
l e g a l 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 
from 
a 
f i n a l 
judgment, 
o r d e r , 
or 
p r o c e e d i n g 
f o r the f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : 
(1) 
m i s t a k e , 
i n a d v e r t e n c e , 
s u r p r i s e , or e x c u s a b l e 
n e g l e c t ; 
(2) 
newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e 
... ; 
(3) 
f r a u d 
... ; 
(4) 
the 
judgment 
i s v o i d ; 
(5) 
the 
judgment has 
been 
s a t i s f i e d , 
r e l e a s e d , or d i s c h a r g e d 
... ; or 
(6) 
any 
o t h e r r e a s o n j u s t i f y i n g r e l i e f from the o p e r a t i o n of 
the judgment. 
The 
motion 
s h a l l be made w i t h i n a  
r e a s o n a b l e 
t i m e , and f o r reasons ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , and 
( 3 ) , 
not more than f o u r 
(4) months a f t e r the judgment, 
o r d e r , or p r o c e e d i n g was e n t e r e d or t a k e n . 
A m o t i o n 
under t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n does not a f f e c t the 
f i n a l i t y 
of a judgment or suspend i t s o p e r a t i o n . " 
37 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
(Emphasis added.) 
The Adams p l a i n t i f f s 
argue t h a t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t p r o p e r l y reopened t h e 
judgment p u r s u a n t t o 
R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) 
because, t h e y say, t h e y p r o v e d t h e 
e x i s t e n c e o f " e x t r a o r d i n a r y 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s i m p o s i n g extreme i n j u s t i c e . " 
T h e i r argument 
i s 
based on t h e i r c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e y were m i s l e d o r c o e r c e d 
i n t o 
s i g n i n g 
t h e s e t t l e m e n t agreements 
i n t h e Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z c o n t e n d t h a t t h e 
Adams 
p l a i n t i f f s ' 
argument t h a t t h e y were c o e r c e d o r m i s l e d i n t o s i g n i n g t h e 
s e t t l e m e n t agreements i s u n s u p p o r t e d , i s w i t h o u t m e r i t , and i s 
u n t i m e l y because i t i s 
an a t t a c k on a f i n a l judgment e n t e r e d 
e i g h t y e a r s b e f o r e t h e Adams' p l a i n t i f f s 
f i l e d t h e second 
a c t i o n . 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z deny t h a t t h e 
Adams 
p l a i n t i f f s 
were m i s l e d o r c o e r c e d i n t o s i g n i n g t h e 
s e t t l e m e n t agreements, 
but 
t h e y argue 
t h a t , 
even i f t h o s e 
t h i n g s were 
t r u e , no 
p r o v i s i o n o f R u l e 60(b) 
i s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e 
Adams 
p l a i n t i f f s 
because o f t h e c l e a r time l i m i t a t i o n s i n R u l e 6 0 ( b ) . 
I f t h e 
Adams p l a i n t i f f s ' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e y were c o e r c e d o r m i s l e d 
i s i n t e r p r e t e d as a motion b r o u g h t under s u b s e c t i o n s ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , 
or (3) 
o f R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , a four-month d e a d l i n e c o n t r o l s , and 
any 
c h a l l e n g e 
under 
R u l e 
6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) 
must be b r o u g h t 
w i t h i n a 
" r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . " 
A c c o r d i n g t o S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z , t h e 
38 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
Adams p l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t f i l e t h e i r motion w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e 
time o r show any e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t would have 
j u s t i f i e d r e o p e n i n g t h e 2003 judgment. 
R u l e 60(b) r e q u i r e s t h a t any R u l e 60(b) motion must be 
b r o u g h t 
w i t h i n a " r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . " 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z 
m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e 
time l i m i t w i t h i n which t h e 
Adams p l a i n t i f f s 
c o u l d have 
f i l e d a R u l e 60(b) motion has l o n g s i n c e been 
exceeded. 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z argue t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t i n t h e 
f i n a l i t y o f a judgment, " t h e r e a s o n f o r 
d e l a y " i n f i l i n g a 
R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n , " t h e p r a c t i c a l a b i l i t y t o l e a r n 
e a r l i e r 
of t h e 
grounds" upon which e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e l i e f i s 
sought, and 
the p r e j u d i c e 
t o 
t h e 
o t h e r p a r t i e s a l l weigh a g a i n s t t h e 
Adams 
p l a i n t i f f s ' 
a t t e m p t s t o reopen t h e 2003 judgment. 
See Ex  
p a r t e H i c k s , 67 So. 3d 877, 880 ( A l a . 2011). 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z a l s o argue t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t had 
no 
i n h e r e n t a u t h o r i t y t o reopen t h e 2003 judgment. 
They 
r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e 2003 judgment r e s e r v e s t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t 
the a u t h o r i t y t o o v e r s e e t h e enforcement o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t 
agreement; however, t h e y argue, t h a t a u t h o r i t y d i d 
n o t a l l o w 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t t o a l t e r t h e judgment o r t o m o d i f y 
v e s t e d 
r i g h t s g r a n t e d by t h e judgment, e s p e c i a l l y not e i g h t 
y e a r s 
a f t e r t h e judgment was e n t e r e d . 
Helms, 646 So. 2d a t 
1347. 
39 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z c o n t e n d t h a t r e o p e n i n g t h e judgment 
f o r 
a r e v i e w o f 
t h e 
a t t o r n e y f e e 
and expenses, as w e l l as f r e e z i n g 
payments t h e t r u s t e e o f t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t was o b l i g a t e d t o 
make f o r m e d i c a l and e d u c a t i o n a l expenses, i s an improper 
m o d i f i c a t i o n t o t h e 2003 judgment. 
F i n a l l y , S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z m a i n t a i n t h a t 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
s h o u l d d i r e c t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o v a c a t e t h a t p o r t i o n o f 
i t s 
August 22 o r d e r u n s e a l i n g c e r t a i n 
r e c o r d s r e l a t i n g t o t h e 
A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t , 
i n c l u d i n g 
an 
a c c o u n t i n g 
f i r m ' s 
r e p o r t 
showing, among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e 
names o f 
t h e 
b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f 
the 
A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t , 
t h e P C B - r e l a t e d 
i l l n e s s e s , 
and t h e 
payments made from t h e 
A b e r n a t h y t r u s t . 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z 
argue t h a t u n s e a l i n g those r e c o r d s w i l l d i s c l o s e t o 
t h e p u b l i c 
c o n f i d e n t i a l m e d i c a l and f i n a n c i a l 
i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o 
the Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s . 
S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z a l s o argue t h a t 
the t r i a l c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y f r o z e t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s t o 
be made 
from t h e A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t . 
I t i s 
c l e a r t o t h i s C o u r t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t l a c k e d 
t h e 
a u t h o r i t y under R u l e 60(b) 
t o reopen t h e f i n a l 2003 judgment 
because t h e 
motion s e e k i n g t o reopen i t 
was b r o u g h t f a r beyond 
a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . 
T h i s C o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d 
t h e 
40 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
elements 
t h a t a r e used t o d e t e r m i n e a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e f o r 
purposes o f a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n : 
"'What 
c o n s t i t u t e s 
a 
" r e a s o n a b l e 
t i m e " 
depends on t h e f a c t s o f each case, t a k i n g 
i n t o 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n 
t h e 
i n t e r e s t 
o f 
f i n a l i t y , t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y , t h e 
p r a c t i c a l 
a b i l i t y t o l e a r n e a r l i e r o f 
t h e 
grounds 
r e l i e d upon, and t h e p r e j u d i c e t o 
o t h e r p a r t i e s . Adams v. F a r l o w , 516 So. 
2d 
528 
( A l a . 1987), 
c e r t . d e n i e d , 485 U.S. 
1010 
(1988). 
I n a d d i t i o n , t h e d o c t r i n e 
l a c h e s , 
which d e n i e s e q u i t a b l e 
r e l i e f 
one 
g u i l t y 
o f u n c o n s c i o n a b l e 
d e l a y 
of 
t o 
i n 
60(b) 
a s s e r t i n g a c l a i m , 
a p p l i e s t o R u l e 
m o t i o n s . 
Waldrop v. Waldrop, 395 So. 2d 62 
(Ala.1981) 
.' 
"Ex p a r t e W.J., 622 So. 2d 358, 361 ( A l a . 1993)." 
H i c k s , 67 So. 3d a t 880. 
A f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e f a c t s o f t h i s 
case and t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e 
elements t h a t d e t e r m i n e 
a r e a s o n a b l e time f o r 
purposes o f a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n , we 
c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e 
Adams p l a i n t i f f s d i d 
n o t f i l e 
t h e i r motion 
w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . 
Moreover, 
t h i s C o u r t has found no 
cases i n which a p e r i o d o f more t h a n e i g h t y e a r s f o r 
t h e 
f i l i n g 
o f a 
R u l e 
60(b) motion 
was deemed r e a s o n a b l e . 
T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e 
t h a t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t exceeded i t s 
d i s c r e t i o n i n r e o p e n i n g t h e 2003 judgment. 
Because we h o l d 
t h a t t h e 
Adams p l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t f i l e t h e i r R u l e 60(b) motion 
w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , we need n o t r e a c h t h e i r argument 
i n 
41 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
t h a t m o t i o n t h a t t h e y p r o v e d e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
t h a t 
j u s t i f i e d 
t h e i r attempt t o reopen t h e judgment. 
The Adams 
p l a i n t i f f s 
a l s o argue t h a t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
p r o p e r l y reopened t h e 2003 judgment because t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
t h a t p r e s i d e d over t h e Monsanto 
l i t i g a t i o n d i d n o t h o l d a 
f a i r n e s s h e a r i n g when i t e n t e r e d t h e judgment i n 2003 and 
because t h e a t t o r n e y - f e e award i n 
t h e 
Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n was 
approved b e f o r e t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t took 
i n t o a c c o u n t a l l 
t h e 
f a c t o r s 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
has 
h e l d 
s h o u l d 
be 
c o n s i d e r e d 
i n 
d e t e r m i n i n g t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s 
o f an a t t o r n e y f e e . 
S t e w a r t 
and K a s o w i t z 
p o i n t out t h a t t h e Adams p l a i n t i f f s a r e a s k i n g 
t h a t t h e c o u r t a p p l y p r o c e d u r e s a p p l i c a b l e o n l y i n a c l a s s -
a c t i o n s e t t i n g and t h a t t h e Monsanto l i t i g a t i o n was never a 
c l a s s a c t i o n .
5 
The c l a s s - a c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s 
i n Rule 23, 
A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P., t h e y argue, a r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e . 
We agree 
t h a t t h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t 
i n a case t h a t i s n o t a c l a s s 
a c t i o n t o h o l d a " f a i r n e s s h e a r i n g " o r t o d e t e r m i n e whether 
the named p l a i n t i f f a d e q u a t e l y 
r e p r e s e n t e d t h e o t h e r p a r t i e s 
i n t h e case. 
Those c o n c e p t s a r e l i m i t e d t o c l a s s a c t i o n s . 
5See Ex p a r t e Monsanto Co., 862 So. 2d 595, 599 
( A l a . 
2003) ("The t r i a l c o u r t c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e t h r e e a c t i o n s ; t h e r e 
are 
c u r r e n t l y over 
3,500 
p l a i n t i f f s 
i n t h e c o n s o l i d a t e d 
a c t i o n . 
T h i s case i s 
not a c l a s s a c t i o n . " (emphasis 
a d d e d ) ) . 
42 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
T h i s C o u r t has i d e n t i f i e d 12 c r i t e r i a a t r i a l 
c o u r t 
s h o u l d 
c o n s i d e r when d e c i d i n g whether an a t t o r n e y f e e 
i s r e a s o n a b l e . 
See Pharmacia Corp., 915 So. 2d a t 552-53. 
Even though t h e 
t r i a l c o u r t d i d 
n o t d i s c u s s t h e elements o f t h e a t t o r n e y f e e 
approved i n 2003, t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y f e e was 
r e a s o n a b l e 
and 
approved 
t h e p o r t i o n 
o f t h e 
s e t t l e m e n t 
agreement awarding a 40% a t t o r n e y f e e 
t o S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z . 
In 2004, t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
r e c o n f i r m e d 
i t s h o l d i n g t h a t t h e 
a t t o r n e y 
f e e s 
were 
r e a s o n a b l e . 
I t i s f a r t o o l a t e t o 
c h a l l e n g e t h a t h o l d i n g now. 
The 
t r i a l c o u r t i n t h e second a c t i o n a l s o r e l i e d on i t s 
i n h e r e n t a u t h o r i t y d e r i v e d from t h e c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n t o 
e n f o r c e t h e s e t t l e m e n t agreement r e s e r v e d by t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
i n t h e 2003 judgment. 
However, t h e s o l e purpose o f t h a t 
c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n — t o e n f o r c e t h e s e t t l e m e n t agreement 
— 
d i d n o t g i v e t h e t r i a l c o u r t a u t h o r i t y beyond e n f o r c i n g t h e 
s e t t l e m e n t . 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t has t h e a u t h o r i t y under 
i t s 
c o n t i n u i n g 
j u r i s d i c t i o n t o examine t h e A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t t o 
ensure 
t h a t t h e t r u s t 
was 
e s t a b l i s h e d 
a c c o r d i n g 
t o t h e 
g u i d e l i n e s s e t 
out i n 
t h e s e t t l e m e n t agreement, b u t no more. 
Any e f f o r t s by t h e 
Adams p l a i n t i f f s t o o b t a i n an a c c o u n t i n g o f 
43 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the t r u s t must be b r o u g h t under § 19-3B-
205, 
s u b j e c t t o the venue p r o v i s i o n s i n § 19-3B-204. 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
c l e a r l y exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n 
i n i t s 
August 22 o r d e r when i t reopened a f i n a l judgment e n t e r e d more 
t h a n 
e i g h t 
y e a r s 
b e f o r e , 
s c h e d u l e d 
a 
h e a r i n g 
on 
the 
r e a s o n a b l e n e s s 
of 
the 
a t t o r n e y - f e e 
award 
i n 
t h a t 
2003 
judgment, o r d e r e d t h a t n o t i c e of the h e a r i n g on the 
a t t o r n e y 
f e e s be m a i l e d t o a l l 
the Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s , d e l v e d i n t o the 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 
of 
the A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t 
f o r the purpose 
of 
r e v i e w i n g c l a i m s a l r e a d y p a i d or d e n i e d , o r d e r e d 
c o n f i d e n t i a l 
m e d i c a l 
and 
f i n a n c i a l 
i n f o r m a t i o n 
t o 
be 
r e l e a s e d 
t o 
the 
p u b l i c , and f r o z e d i s t r i b u t i o n s from the A b e r n a t h y t r u s t . 
To 
the e x t e n t the 
t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r seeks t o examine the 
t r u s t 
documents t o ensure t h a t the A b e r n a t h y t r u s t was 
e s t a b l i s h e d 
i n 
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h 
the terms of the 
s e t t l e m e n t 
agreement, 
however, the o r d e r was 
w i t h i n the 
t r i a l c o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y t o 
e n f o r c e the terms of the s e t t l e m e n t agreement. 
We t h e r e f o r e g r a n t S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z ' s 
p e t i t i o n f o r a 
w r i t 
of mandamus as t o a l l p o r t i o n s of the August 22 
o r d e r 
e x c e p t t h a t p o r t i o n i n w h i c h the 
t r i a l c o u r t sought t o 
r e v i e w 
the A b e r n a t h y t r u s t documents t o see i f t h e y comport w i t h the 
44 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
terms o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t agreement, and we d i r e c t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t t o v a c a t e a l l 
o t h e r p o r t i o n s o f i t s 
August 22 o r d e r . 
2. Order o f September 9, 2011 
A t t h e h e a r i n g on September 9, 2011, t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
o r a l l y 
d e n i e d S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z ' s motion t o v a c a t e t h e 
o r d e r o f 
August 22 and t h e i r motion t o s t a y t h e 
p r o c e e d i n g s i n 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t p e n d i n g an a p p e a l . 
Because t h i s C o u r t has 
g r a n t e d t h e r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f by g r a n t i n g t h e p e t i t i o n f o r 
a 
w r i t o f mandamus as t o most p o r t i o n s o f t h e August 22 o r d e r 
and has s t a y e d t h e 
p r o c e e d i n g s i n 
t h e t r i a l c o u r t p e n d i n g t h e 
r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e s e a p p e l l a t e p r o c e e d i n g s , we need n o t f u r t h e r 
a d d r e s s t h e September 9 o r d e r . 
3. D i s t r i b u t i o n s from t h e A b e r n a t h y T r u s t 
F i n a l l y , 
t h i s C o u r t n o t e s t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
o r d e r 
f r e e z i n g 
c e r t a i n 
d i s t r i b u t i o n s 
from t h e 
A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t , t h e i n t e r v e n o r s i n 
t h e f i r s t a c t i o n 
a l l e g e d 
t h a t S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z had s t o p p e d making 
d i s t r i b u t i o n s 
from t h e A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t . 
The C o u r t t a k e s n o t i c e t h a t t h e r e 
are 
c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s who a r e l i k e l y g o i n g w i t h o u t m e d i c a l 
c a r e o r e d u c a t i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e w h i l e t h e s e cases have been 
i n 
t h i s C o u r t . 
On remand o f t h e f i r s t 
a c t i o n i n a p p e a l no. 
1100063 and upon t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e w r i t o f 
mandamus i n case 
45 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
no. 1101452, b o t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t and S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z a r e 
d i r e c t e d t o i m m e d i a t e l y l i f t any f r e e z e o f d i s t r i b u t i o n s from 
the A b e r n a t h y t r u s t and t o r e s t o r e t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f b e n e f i t s 
to t h e e l i g i b l e Monsanto p l a i n t i f f s w i t h t h e utmost speed. 
IV. 
C o n c l u s i o n 
As 
t o t h e f i r s t 
a c t i o n , we 
r e v e r s e t h e judgment o f 
d i s m i s s a l as t o B a t e s and J o y n e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r 
an a c c o u n t i n g 
of t h e 
A b e r n a t h y t r u s t ; a f f i r m t h e judgment o f d i s m i s s a l as 
t o 
a l l o t h e r c l a i m s ; and remand t h e case f o r 
f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s 
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s 
o p i n i o n . As t o t h e second 
a c t i o n , we 
d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l as moot. As t o t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n , we 
g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n f o r 
a w r i t o f mandamus as t o a l l p o r t i o n s 
of t h e 
August 22 o r d e r e x c e p t t h a t p o r t i o n t h a t seeks a r e v i e w 
of t h e A b e r n a t h y t r u s t documents as compared t o t h e terms o f 
the s e t t l e m e n t agreement, and we i s s u e t h e w r i t . 
We 
a l s o 
d i r e c t t h e t r i a l c o u r t and S t e w a r t and K a s o w i t z t o i m m e d i a t e l y 
l i f t any f r e e z e o f d i s t r i b u t i o n s from t h e A b e r n a t h y 
t r u s t . 
1100063--AFFIRMED 
IN 
PART; 
REVERSED 
IN 
PART; 
AND 
REMANDED. 
1101452--PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 
WRIT ISSUED. 
46 
1100063; 1101452; 1101456 
1101456-APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT. 
Malone, C.J., and W o o d a l l , S t u a r t , B o l i n , P a r k e r , Shaw, 
and Wise, J J . , concur. 
47