Title: Wade Allen Hutchins and Tina Marie Crowder v. Service Corporation International

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

Rel 06/26/2009
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2008-2009
____________________
1041199
____________________
Wade Allen Hutchins and Tina Marie Crowder
v.
Service Corporation International
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court 
(CV-04-3473)
PER CURIAM.
Wade Allen Hutchins and Tina Marie Crowder (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "the plaintiffs") appeal from the
trial 
court's 
judgment 
dismissing 
Service 
Corporation
International ("SCI") from the underlying action.  We reverse
and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
1041199
2
On June 3, 2004, the plaintiffs sued SCI and its
subsidiary, 
SCI 
Alabama 
Funeral 
Services, 
Inc. 
("SCI
Alabama"), alleging negligence and/or wantonness, trespass on
the case, and the tort of outrage.  In addition, Hutchins
alleged breach of contract against SCI Alabama.  All the
claims were related to the services provided by SCI Alabama
and SCI in connection with the funeral and burial of the
plaintiffs' father.
On July 26, 2004, SCI and SCI Alabama filed a joint
answer to the complaint.  One of the affirmative defenses
asserted in the answer was that the "[p]laintiffs' claims are
subject to arbitration and must be pursued, if at all, in
arbitration rather than in court, and for this reason
[p]laintiffs' claims are due to be dismissed or stayed."
On July 27, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an application for
the entry of a default judgment against SCI and SCI Alabama
based on their alleged failure to "plead, answer or otherwise
defend" the case.  The trial court granted the plaintiffs'
application for entry of default on August 5, 2004.  On August
6, 2004, SCI and SCI Alabama filed a motion to dismiss the
action and to compel arbitration.  On August 12, 2004, SCI and
1041199
3
SCI Alabama moved to set aside the default judgment.  On
August 18, 2004, the trial court granted the motion to set
aside the default judgment and recognized that the motion to
dismiss and to compel arbitration "remains pending this
Court's ruling."
The entire argument set forth in the motion to dismiss
and to compel arbitration was SCI and SCI Alabama's contention
that the plaintiffs should be compelled to arbitrate all of
their claims against SCI and SCI Alabama.  The motion
requested the following relief:
"[SCI and SCI Alabama] 
respectfully 
request 
this
Honorable Court to dismiss [p]laintiffs' claims or
in the alternative, enter an order compelling
arbitration in accordance with the contract executed
by the parties.  Plaintiffs' claims are due to be
dismissed or, in the alternative, arbitrated and
stayed.  Dismissal is proper when claims are due to
be arbitrated. See Ex parte Colquitt, 808 So. 2d
1018, 
1022 
(Ala. 
2001); 
see 
also 
Ameriquest
[Mortgage Co.] v. Bentley, [851 So. 2d 458] (Ala.
2002); Hurst v. Tony Moore, Inc., 699 So. 2d 1249
(Ala. 1997).
"WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants SCI
Alabama 
and 
[SCI] 
respectfully 
request 
this
Honorable Court to dismiss [p]laintiffs' complaint
or, in the alternative, stay this action and order
this matter to binding arbitration."
(Capitalization in original.)  The plaintiffs responded to
this motion on January 19, 2005.  The only issue addressed in
1041199
4
the response was whether the plaintiffs should be compelled to
arbitrate their claims.  SCI and SCI Alabama replied to the
plaintiffs' response on January 21, 2005.  This reply also
discussed only one issue: whether the plaintiffs should be
compelled to arbitrate their claims.  It requested that the
trial court "dismiss [p]laintiffs' complaint or, in the
alternative, stay this action and order this matter to binding
arbitration."
On January 24, 2005, the trial court entered an order,
holding that "this action is hereby stayed and [SCI and SCI
Alabama's] motion to compel arbitration should be granted." 
On February 22, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a "motion to
alter, amend, or vacate" the order compelling arbitration or,
in the alternative, "to reconsider."  This motion argued that
the trial court's order compelling arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims was contrary to prior decisions of this
Court.
On March 25, 2005, the trial court entered a second
order, which held that SCI and SCI Alabama's "motion to
dismiss is hereby granted as to [SCI] only. Accordingly, SCI
... is herein dismissed from this ... action and the court's
1041199
5
previous order compelling arbitration of this matter remains
in effect as to the remaining parties."
On April 13, 2005, the trial court entered a "revised
order," which provided: 
"[T]he court's order heretofore entered on January
24, 2005, is hereby set aside and [SCI and SCI
Alabama's] motion to dismiss is hereby granted as to
[SCI] only.  Accordingly, SCI ... is herein
dismissed, without prejudice, from this ... action.
"With regard to 
remaining 
defendant 
SCI 
Alabama,
the court herein grants [SCI Alabama's] previously
filed motion to compel arbitration."
Therefore, under this order, the trial court dismissed all
claims against SCI without sending them to arbitration, and
SCI Alabama remained a party to the action, all claims against
it were sent to arbitration, and the proceedings in the trial
court were stayed. 
On May 11, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
to this Court.  On October 27, 2006, this Court remanded the
case to the trial court for a determination as to whether (1)
to certify the interlocutory order of April 13, 2005, as a
final judgment under Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.; (2) to
adjudicate the remaining claims against SCI Alabama, thus
making the interlocutory order final and appealable; or (3) to
1041199
6
hold the parties to their concessions in their appellate
briefs or take no action, in either of which events the appeal
would be dismissed as being from a nonfinal judgment.  On
November 7, 2006, the trial court certified the interlocutory
order of April 13, 2005, as a final judgment under Rule 54(b),
Ala. R. Civ. P.
Standard of Review
It is unclear upon what ground the trial court based its
dismissal 
of 
the 
plaintiffs' 
claims 
against 
SCI.
Nevertheless, this Court has held:
"On appeal, a dismissal is not entitled to a
presumption of correctness. Jones v. Lee County
Commission, 394 So. 2d 928, 930 (Ala. 1981); Allen
v. Johnny Baker Hauling, Inc., 545 So. 2d 771, 772
(Ala. Civ. App. 1989). The appropriate standard of
review under Rule 12(b)(6)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] is
whether, when the allegations of the complaint are
viewed most strongly in the pleader's favor, it
appears that the pleader could prove any set of
circumstances that would entitle her to relief.
Raley v. Citibanc of Alabama/Andalusia, 474 So. 2d
640, 641 (Ala. 1985); Hill v. Falletta, 589 So. 2d
746 
(Ala. 
Civ. 
App. 
1991). 
In 
making 
this
determination, this Court does not consider whether
the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but only
whether she may possibly prevail. Fontenot v.
Bramlett, 470 So. 2d 669, 671 (Ala. 1985); Rice v.
United Ins. Co. of America, 465 So. 2d 1100, 1101
(Ala. 1984). We note that a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal
is proper only when it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to
1041199
The plaintiffs state in their brief that they "do not
1
raise any issue on appeal with respect to SCI Alabama."
(Plaintiffs' brief, at 11.) 
7
relief. Garrett v. Hadden, 495 So. 2d 616, 617 (Ala.
1986); Hill v. Kraft, Inc., 496 So. 2d 768, 769
(Ala. 1986)."
Nance v. Matthews, 622 So. 2d 297, 299 (Ala. 1993).
Discussion
In the plaintiffs' principal brief on appeal, they argue
that their claims against SCI are not subject to arbitration
and that the trial court erred in dismissing the claims
against SCI.   However, the plaintiffs indicate in their reply
1
brief that they are willing to arbitrate their claims against
SCI if this Court finds that the trial court erred in
dismissing SCI from the action rather than ordering that the
plaintiffs' claims against SCI be arbitrated.  
In its brief to this Court, SCI appears to misconstrue
the trial court's order because SCI states that "because the
[p]laintiffs' claims against [SCI] are subject to arbitration,
the trial court's order dismissing those claims is due to be
affirmed." (SCI's brief, at 9.)  However, the trial court's
order did not state that the claims against SCI are subject to
arbitration.  Instead, the order simply dismissed those claims
1041199
8
altogether.  Also, SCI "request[s] that this Court affirm the
April 13, 2005, order of the trial court and order
[p]laintiffs to submit to arbitration as to both Defendant
[SCI] and SCI Alabama." (SCI's brief, at 14.)  Again, the
trial court's April 13, 2005, order did not order the
plaintiffs to submit their claims against SCI to arbitration;
thus, this Court cannot affirm a holding of the trial court
that does not exist.  
No basis for the dismissal of SCI from the action
independent of arbitration was presented to the trial court,
and the trial court did not in its order offer any basis for
refusing to entertain the plaintiffs' complaint against SCI.
In fact, the above-referenced statements from SCI's brief
appear to concede that SCI should not be dismissed from the
action 
unless 
the 
claims 
against 
it 
are 
ordered 
to
arbitration.  Therefore, we conclude that the trial court
erred in dismissing the claims against SCI. 
SCI also briefly argues on appeal that a dismissal, as
distinguished from a stay, is proper when the claims against
the party are due to be arbitrated.  However, it appears that
the trial court never reached this specific issue because the
1041199
9
trial court's final order did not compel arbitration of the
claims against SCI.  Instead, the order simply dismissed SCI
from the action.  We recognize that this Court has stated that
"[a] trial court is required to stay or dismiss proceedings
and to compel arbitration if the parties have entered into a
valid 
contract 
containing 
an 
arbitration 
agreement."
Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Bentley, 851 So. 2d 458, 462 (Ala.
2002).  This Court has also held that a trial court exceeds
its discretion by dismissing rather than staying proceedings
pending arbitration if the dismissal creates "a real potential
for injustice." Johnson v. Jefferson County Racing Ass'n, 1
So. 3d 960, 970 (Ala. 2008).  Nevertheless, in the present
case, it appears that the trial court did not consider whether
a stay, rather than a dismissal, would be prudent pending a
decision by the arbitrator because there is no indication in
the trial court's order that the court envisioned the
plaintiffs' claims against SCI being decided by an arbitrator.
Therefore, at this time, we will not decide whether a
dismissal rather than a stay would be the appropriate relief
pending arbitration of the claims against SCI.  The trial
1041199
10
court should, within its discretion, consider this issue on
remand.
Conclusion
We reverse the trial court's order dismissing the claims
against SCI without prejudice and remand this case for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cobb, C.J., and Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Smith, Bolin,
Parker, Murdock, and Shaw, JJ., concur.