Title: Webster v. Southeast Alabama Timber Harvesting, LLC

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 04/20/2012 
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229¬
0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 
t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s 
may 
be 
made b e f o r e 
t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 
1110349 
Ex parte Southeast Alabama Timber Harvesting, 
LLC, 
and Michael J. Smith 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
(In r e : P a t r i c i a G a i l Webster 
v. 
Southeast Alabama Timber Harvesting, 
LLC, 
and Michael J. Smith) 
(Chambers C i r c u i t Court, CV-11-900040) 
PER CURIAM. 
1110349 
S o u t h e a s t Alabama Timber H a r v e s t i n g , LLC ( " S o u t h e a s t " ) , 
and 
M i c h a e l J . Smith 
p e t i t i o n 
t h i s 
C o u r t f o r a w r i t o f 
mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e Chambers C i r c u i t C o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s 
o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e i r motion t o t r a n s f e r t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n 
t o Lee County on t h e ground o f forum non c o n v e n i e n s and t o 
e n t e r an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e i r m o t i o n . 
We g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n 
and i s s u e t h e w r i t . 
I . 
F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y 
On F e b r u a r y 22, 2011, 
a v e h i c l e b e i n g d r i v e n by P a t r i c i a 
G a i l 
Webster on Marvyn 
Parkway i n Lee County 
a l l e g e d l y 
c o l l i d e d 
w i t h t i m b e r 
t h a t had come l o o s e from a 
t r a c t o r -
t r a i l e r 
r i g 
owned by S o u t h e a s t 
and b e i n g 
d r i v e n by 
i t s 
employee, 
Smith, 
c a u s i n g Webster 
s e r i o u s 
i n j u r i e s . 
P o l i c e 
o f f i c e r s who work i n 
Lee County 
responded t o 
t h e scene o f 
t h e 
a c c i d e n t . 
A f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , Webster was t r e a t e d a t E a s t 
Alabama M e d i c a l C e n t e r i n 
Lee County. 
On 
A p r i l 18, 2011, Webster 
sued 
S o u t h e a s t and Smith 
a l l e g i n g n e g l i g e n t and/or wanton l o a d i n g and/or s e c u r i n g l o a d ; 
n e g l i g e n t 
e n t r u s t m e n t ; n e g l i g e n t , 
r e c k l e s s , 
and/or 
wanton 
v i o l a t i o n s 
o f t h e r u l e s o f t h e r o a d ; n e g l i g e n t 
t r a i n i n g , 
h i r i n g , and s u p e r v i s i o n ; and wanton and r e c k l e s s 
conduct. 
2 
1110349 
Webster 
f i l e d her a c t i o n i n the Chambers C i r c u i t C o u r t i n 
r e l i a n c e upon the venue p r o v i s i o n of § 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 
1975, p r o v i d i n g t h a t a county i n which a c o r p o r a t i o n m a i n t a i n s 
i t s p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e i n t h i s s t a t e i s a p r o p e r venue f o r an 
a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h a t c o r p o r a t i o n . S o u t h e a s t ' s p r i n c i p a l 
o f f i c e 
i s l o c a t e d i n Chambers C o u n t y .
1 
On May 19, 2011, S o u t h e a s t and Smith f i l e d answers t o the 
c o m p l a i n t i n which t h e y a s s e r t e d improper venue, 
s p e c i f i c a l l y 
the 
d o c t r i n e 
of 
forum 
non 
c o n v e n i e n s , as 
an 
a f f i r m a t i v e 
d e f e n s e . 
On J u l y 12, 2011, S o u t h e a s t and Smith f i l e d a motion 
f o r a change of venue i n which t h e y contended, based on § 6-3¬
21.1, A l a . Code 1975, t h a t the case s h o u l d be t r a n s f e r r e d t o 
Lee County i n the i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e and f o r the c o n v e n i e n c e 
of the p a r t i e s and w i t n e s s e s . 
S o u t h e a s t and 
Smith 
f i l e d 
e x h i b i t s i n s u p p o r t of t h e i r m o t i o n , i n c l u d i n g an a f f i d a v i t of 
D a v i d 
L o l l i s , 
the 
o n l y known n o n p a r t y e y e w i t n e s s t o 
the 
a c c i d e n t , who a v e r r e d t h a t he l i v e s and works i n Lee 
County 
and t h a t t r a v e l i n g t o Chambers County f o r the t r i a l would be 
"a s i g n i f i c a n t burden" t o him. 
1 A t the time o f the a c c i d e n t , Webster r e s i d e d and worked 
i n 
Lee County. 
I t i s not 
c l e a r from the 
r e c o r d 
whether 
Webster c o n t i n u e d t o r e s i d e and t o work i n Lee County when the 
a c t i o n was 
f i l e d . 
3 
1110349 
On October 18, 2011, Webster 
f i l e d 
an o p p o s i t i o n t o 
S o u t h e a s t and Smith's motion f o r 
a change o f venue. 
On November 10, 2011, f o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g , t h e c i r c u i t 
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 t h e m o t i o n f o r 
a change o f 
venue. 
S o u t h e a s t and Smith t i m e l y f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t 
of mandamus s e e k i n g a r e v i e w o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s o r d e r . 
I I . 
S t a n d a r d o f Review 
"The 
p r o p e r method f o r o b t a i n i n g r e v i e w o f a 
d e n i a l o f a motion f o r 
a change o f venue i n 
a 
c i v i l 
a c t i o n i s t o p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus. 
L a w l e r M o b i l e Homes, I n c . v. T a r v e r , 492 So. 2d 
297, 
302 
( A l a . 1986) . 
'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 
s o u g h t ; 
(2) an 
i m p e r a t i v e d u t y 
upon t h e 
r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , accompanied by a r e f u s a l t o 
do s o ; (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 
I n t e g o n Corp., 
672 So. 2d 497, 499 
( A l a . 
1995). 
'When we 
c o n s i d e r 
a mandamus 
p e t i t i o n 
r e l a t i n g t o a venue r u l i n g , our scope o f r e v i e w i s 
to 
d e t e r m i n e i f t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
[ e x c e e d e d ] i t s 
d i s c r e t i o n , 
i . e . , whether 
i t 
e x e r c i s e d i t s 
d i s c r e t i o n i n an a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s manner.' 
I d . 
Our r e v i e w i s f u r t h e r 
l i m i t e d t o t h o s e 
f a c t s 
t h a t were b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t . 
Ex p a r t e American  
R e s o u r c e s 
I n s . Co., 663 So. 2d 932, 936 
( A l a . 
1995)." 
Ex p a r t e N a t i o n a l Sec. I n s . 
Co., 727 So. 2d 788, 789 ( A l a . 
1998). 
4 
1110349 
I I I . 
A n a l y s i s 
S e c t i o n 
6-3-21.1 
p r o v i d e s when 
an 
a c t i o n 
must 
be 
t r a n s f e r r e d t o a n o t h e r venue under the d o c t r i n e of forum non  
c o n v e n i e n s : 
" W i t h 
r e s p e c t 
t o 
c i v i l 
a c t i o n s 
f i l e d 
i n 
an 
a p p r o p r i a t e venue, any c o u r t of g e n e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n 
s h a l l , f o r the c o n v e n i e n c e of p a r t i e s and w i t n e s s e s ,  
or i n the i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e , 
t r a n s f e r any 
c i v i l 
a c t i o n o r any c l a i m i n any c i v i l a c t i o n t o any 
c o u r t 
of g e n e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n w h i c h the a c t i o n 
might 
have been p r o p e r l y 
f i l e d and the case s h a l l p r o c e e d 
as though o r i g i n a l l y 
f i l e d 
t h e r e i n . " 
§ 6-3-21.1(a), A l a . Code 1975 
(emphasis added). 
"A d e f e n d a n t 
moving f o r a t r a n s f e r under § 6-3-21.1 has the i n i t i a l 
burden 
of 
showing 
t h a t 
the 
t r a n s f e r 
i s 
j u s t i f i e d , 
based 
on 
the 
c o n v e n i e n c e 
of the p a r t i e s 
and w i t n e s s e s o r based 
on 
the 
i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e . " 
Ex p a r t e N a t i o n a l 
Sec. I n s . Co., 
727 
So. 2d a t 789. 
S o u t h e a s t and Smith c o n t e n d t h a t b o t h the i n t e r e s t of 
j u s t i c e 
and 
the c o n v e n i e n c e 
of the 
p a r t i e s 
and 
w i t n e s s e s 
d i c t a t e the t r a n s f e r of t h i s case from Chambers County t o Lee 
County. 
Because 
S o u t h e a s t and Smith have d e m o n s t r a t e d 
t h a t 
the i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e 
r e q u i r e s a t r a n s f e r o f t h i s case, we 
do not a d d r e s s the c o n v e n i e n c e o f the p a r t i e s and w i t n e s s e s . 
5 
1110349 
"The 
' i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e ' prong of § 6-3-21.1 
r e q u i r e s 'the t r a n s f e r of the a c t i o n from a county 
w i t h 
l i t t l e , 
i f any, c o n n e c t i o n t o the a c t i o n , 
t o 
the c o u n t y w i t h a s t r o n g c o n n e c t i o n t o the a c t i o n . ' 
Ex p a r t e N a t i o n a l Sec. I n s . Co., 
727 So. 2d 
[788,] 
790 
[ ( A l a . 
1 9 9 8 ) ] . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
' i n a n a l y z i n g 
the 
i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e prong of § 6-3-21.1, t h i s C o u r t 
f o c u s e s 
on 
whether 
the 
"nexus" 
or 
" c o n n e c t i o n " 
between 
the 
p l a i n t i f f ' s 
a c t i o n 
and 
the 
o r i g i n a l 
forum 
i s s t r o n g enough t o w a r r a n t b u r d e n i n g 
the 
p l a i n t i f f ' s forum w i t h the a c t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e 
F i r s t  
Tennessee Bank N a t ' l A s s ' n , 
994 
So. 
2d 
906, 
911 
( A l a . 2008) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t 
' l i t i g a t i o n s h o u l d be h a n d l e d i n the forum where the 
i n j u r y o c c u r r e d . ' Ex p a r t e F u l l e r , 955 So. 2d 414, 
416 ( A l a . 2006). F u r t h e r , i n e x a m i n i n g whether i t 
i s 
i n the i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e t o t r a n s f e r a case, 
we 
c o n s i d e r 
'the burden of p i l i n g c o u r t s e r v i c e s 
and 
r e s o u r c e s upon the p e o p l e o f a county t h a t i s not 
a f f e c t e d by the case and 
... 
the i n t e r e s t of the 
p e o p l e o f a c o u n t y t o have a case t h a t a r i s e s i n 
t h e i r 
c o u n t y 
t r i e d 
c l o s e t o p u b l i c view i n 
t h e i r 
c o u n t y . ' Ex p a r t e Smiths Water & Sewer A u t h . , 
982 
So. 2d 484, 490 ( A l a . 2007). The p e t i t i o n e r s i n t h i s 
case are thus r e q u i r e d t o demonstrate 
' " t h a t h a v i n g 
the case h e a r d i n [Lee] County would more s e r v e the 
i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e " ' than h a v i n g the case h e a r d i n 
[Chambers] County. 
Ex p a r t e F i r s t Tennessee Bank, 
994 So. 2d a t 909 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e F u l l e r , 955 So. 
2d 414, 416 
( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ) . 
" 
Ex p a r t e I n d i a n a M i l l s & Mfg., I n c . , 10 So. 3d 536, 540 ( A l a . 
2008). 
S o u t h e a s t and Smith emphasize 
t h a t the o n l y c o n n e c t i o n 
t h i s case has t o Chambers County i s the f a c t t h a t S o u t h e a s t ' s 
p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s i s l o c a t e d i n Chambers 
County. 
They c i t e 
s e v e r a l a u t o m o b i l e - a c c i d e n t cases w i t h p r o c e d u r a l 
6 
1110349 
f a c t s 
s i m i l a r 
t o t h o s e 
i n t h i s 
case 
i n which 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
mandated t h a t the case s h o u l d be t r a n s f e r r e d t o the c o u n t y i n 
which the a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d . 
For 
example, 
i n I n d i a n a M i l l s , Marcy Johnson, the widow 
of 
an employee o f S u n f l o w e r Waste, LLC, sued S u n f l o w e r 
and 
some of i t s employees f o l l o w i n g an a c c i d e n t t h a t caused her 
husband's d e a t h . 
Johnson 
f i l e d the a c t i o n i n Macon County, 
where one o f the d e f e n d a n t s r e s i d e d and where S u n f l o w e r d i d 
b u s i n e s s . 
Based on the d o c t r i n e of forum non c o n v e n i e n s , the 
d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a motion f o r a change of venue t o Lee County, 
the 
s i t u s of the a c c i d e n t . 
The Macon C i r c u i t C o u r t d e n i e d the 
motion 
t o 
t r a n s f e r 
the 
case, 
and 
the d e f e n d a n t s 
f i l e d 
a 
p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandamus i n t h i s C o u r t . 
In g r a n t i n g 
the 
d e f e n d a n t s ' p e t i t i o n , 
t h i s C o u r t e x p l a i n e d : 
"We 
agree 
t h a t 
t h i s 
case 
c e r t a i n l y 
has 
a 
c o n n e c t i o n 
w i t h Macon County 
-- 
as Marcy 
n o t e s , 
Conner[, an i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t , ] r e s i d e s t h e r e and 
S u n f l o w e r c o n d u c t s b u s i n e s s t h e r e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t 
i s 
t r u e 
t h a t none 
of 
the 
p a r t i e s 
i n 
t h i s 
case 
a c t u a l l y 
r e s i d e s 
i n 
Lee 
County. 
However, 
we 
n e v e r t h e l e s s 
h o l d 
t h a t 
the 
o v e r a l l 
c o n n e c t i o n 
between Macon County and t h i s case i s weak and t h a t 
the 
c o n n e c t i o n between the case and Lee County i s 
s t r o n g . 
" F i r s t and f o r e m o s t , the a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d i n 
Lee 
County. 
Lee 
County 
p o l i c e 
and 
emergency 
p e r s o n n e l -- the O p e l i k a P o l i c e Department and the 
7 
1110349 
O p e l i k a 
F i r e Department -- responded t o the scene 
and 
i n v e s t i g a t e d the a c c i d e n t . 
A d d i t i o n a l l y , Gene 
Manning, 
the c h i e f deputy c o r o n e r of Lee 
County, 
i n v e s t i g a t e d 
James's 
d e a t h . He 
t e s t i f i e d 
i n 
an 
a f f i d a v i t 
t h a t 
a l l the 
work 
he 
p e r f o r m e d 
i n 
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o o k p l a c e i n Lee 
County. 
A d d i t i o n a l l y Danny Cotney, 
the 
a s s i s t a n t 
f i r e c h i e f of the O p e l i k a F i r e Department, 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t the v a r i o u s r e c o r d s and documents g e n e r a t e d by 
the 
department are l o c a t e d i n Lee County. 
"On the o t h e r hand, the ' c o n n e c t i o n ' or 'nexus' 
w i t h Macon County i n t h i s case i s weak. No p a r t y but 
Conner r e s i d e s o r i s l o c a t e d t h e r e . 
A d d i t i o n a l l y , 
none o f the r e l e v a n t 
f a c t s i n t h i s case 
a c t u a l l y 
i n v o l v e Macon C o u n t y . " 
Ex p a r t e 
I n d i a n a 
M i l l s 
& Mfg., 
I n c . , 10 So. 3d a t 540-41 
( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . 
S i m i l a r l y , i n Ex p a r t e McKenzie O i l Co., 13 So. 3d 346 
( A l a . 
2008), Lee F r a n k l i n sued Gary Heathcock, the d r i v e r of 
a v e h i c l e t h a t s t r u c k the v e h i c l e F r a n k l i n was 
d r i v i n g , 
and 
McKenzie O i l 
Company, I n c . , w h i c h o p e r a t e d a c o n v e n i e n c e s t o r e 
at w h i c h Heathcock had p u r c h a s e d a l c o h o l i c beverages b e f o r e 
the 
a c c i d e n t . 
F r a n k l i n 
f i l e d the a c t i o n i n Barbour County, 
where McKenzie's c o r p o r a t e h e a d q u a r t e r s were l o c a t e d . 
Based 
on the d o c t r i n e of forum non c o n v e n i e n s , the d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d 
a motion f o r a change of venue t o Escambia County, the s i t u s 
of the a c c i d e n t . 
The Barbour C i r c u i t C o u r t d e n i e d the motion 
to 
t r a n s f e r the c a s e . 
The d e f e n d a n t s then f i l e d a p e t i t i o n 
8 
1110349 
f o r 
a w r i t 
of mandamus i n t h i s 
C o u r t . 
In g r a n t i n g 
the 
d e f e n d a n t s ' 
p e t i t i o n 
f o r a 
w r i t 
o f mandamus, 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
o b s e r v e d : 
" F r a n k l i n p o i n t s out t h a t McKenzie's c o r p o r a t e 
h e a d q u a r t e r s 
i s l o c a t e d i n Barbour C o u n t y ; 
t h u s , 
F r a n k l i n c l a i m s t h a t Barbour County and i t s 
c i t i z e n s 
have an i n t e r e s t i n McKenzie's 
' w e l l - b e i n g ' and a 
' s i g n i f i c a n t 
i n t e r e s t 
i n whether 
McKenzie' 
has 
f u l f i l l e d i t s o b l i g a t i o n s as a vendor of a l c o h o l i c 
b e v e r a g e s . 
"We agree t h a t McKenzie has 'a c o n n e c t i o n ' w i t h 
Barbour County by 
v i r t u e 
of the 
l o c a t i o n 
of i t s 
c o r p o r a t e 
h e a d q u a r t e r s . However, 
we 
f i n d 
t h i s 
c o n n e c t i o n t o Barbour County t o be 
' l i t t l e ' and the 
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Escambia County t o be 
' s t r o n g . ' Ex  
p a r t e N a t i o n a l Sec. I n s . Co., [727 So. 2d 788 ( A l a . 
1 9 9 8 ) ] . 
"  
"... 
[W]e note t h a t v i r t u a l l y none o f the e v e n t s 
or 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s case o c c u r r e d i n 
or 
r e l a t e 
t o Barbour 
County. 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , 
the 
a c c i d e n t g i v i n g 
r i s e t o F r a n k l i n ' s c l a i m s and the 
a l l e g e d 
t o r t i o u s 
conduct 
by 
b o t h Heathcock 
and 
McKenzie 
t o o k 
p l a c e 
i n 
Escambia 
County. 
Law-enforcement p e r s o n n e l and m e d i c a l p e r s o n n e l i n 
Escambia 
County 
i n v e s t i g a t e d 
the 
a c c i d e n t 
and 
t r e a t e d F r a n k l i n ' s 
i n j u r i e s . 
... Heathcock 
r e s i d e s 
i n 
Escambia 
County. 
For 
a l l t h a t 
a p p e a r s , a l l 
m a t e r i a l 
e v e n t s 
i n 
t h i s 
c a s e , 
i n c l u d i n g 
the 
a c c i d e n t , o c c u r r e d i n Escambia County. 
" G i v e n t h i s s m a l l nexus and 
l i t t l e 
c o n n e c t i o n 
w i t h the f a c t s of t h i s case t o Barbour County and 
the 
s t r o n g c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Escambia County, we h o l d 
t h a t h e a r i n g the case i n Escambia County 'would more 
s e r v e 
the 
i n t e r e s t 
o f 
j u s t i c e . ' 
Ex 
p a r t e 
F i r s t 
9 
1110349 
Tennessee Bank 
[ N a t ' l A s s ' n , 994 So. 2d 906 ( A l a . 
2 0 0 8 ) ] . T h e r e f o r e , McKenzie 
has d e m o n s t r a t e d 
t h a t 
the 
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 
Escambia 
County under A l a . Code 1975, § 6-3-21.1." 
Ex p a r t e McKenzie O i l Co., 13 So. 3d a t 349-50. 
L i k e the a c t i o n s i n I n d i a n a M i l l s and McKenzie 
O i l , 
t h i s 
a c t i o n was 
f i l e d i n the county o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s r e s i d e n c e or 
p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s -- Chambers County -- a l t h o u g h the 
a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d i n a n o t h e r c o u n t y -- Lee County. 
As 
t h i s 
C o u r t has o b s e r v e d : " A l t h o u g h i t i s not a t a l i s m a n , the f a c t 
t h a t the i n j u r y o c c u r r e d i n the p r o p o s e d t r a n s f e r e e county i s 
o f t e n a s s i g n e d c o n s i d e r a b l e w e i g h t i n an 
i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e 
a n a l y s i s . " 
Ex p a r t e Wachovia Bank, N.A., 
77 So. 3d 570, 573¬
74 
( A l a . 2011). 
A l s o , as i n the cases d i s c u s s e d above, 
the 
emergency p e r s o n n e l who 
responded t o the a c c i d e n t i n which 
Webster was i n j u r e d work i n the county t o which S o u t h e a s t and 
Smith seek t o have the a c t i o n t r a n s f e r r e d . 
F u r t h e r , the o n l y 
n o n p a r t y e y e w i t n e s s t o the a c c i d e n t l i v e s and works i n Lee 
County, and Webster was 
l i v i n g and w o r k i n g i n Lee County a t 
the time o f the a c c i d e n t . 
Webster has not even d i s c u s s e d , l e t a l o n e a t t e m p t e d t o 
d i s t i n g u i s h , I n d i a n a M i l l s , McKenzie 
O i l , o r any of the o t h e r 
cases S o u t h e a s t and Smith c i t e d i n s u p p o r t of t r a n s f e r r i n g the 
10 
1110349 
case, i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e , t o Lee C o u n t y .
2 
I n s t e a d , 
Webster s i m p l y argues t h a t the i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e prong o f 
the forum non c o n v e n i e n s s t a t u t e s u p p o r t s t h e f i l i n g o f an 
a c t i o n i n 
t h e 
home county o f a d e f e n d a n t . 
She c i t e s two cases 
i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n 
Ex p a r t e Yocum, 963 So. 2d 
600 
( A l a . 2007), and Ex p a r t e C i t y o f H a l e y v i l l e , 827 So. 2d 
778 
( A l a . 2002), b o t h o f which a r e e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . 
In Yocum, t h e p l a i n t i f f , a r e s i d e n t o f D a l l a s 
County, 
f i l e d 
h e r a c t i o n 
i n J e f f e r s o n 
County, 
t h e r e s i d e n c e 
o r 
p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s o f two o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s . 
S e v e r a l 
d e f e n d a n t s who r e s i d e d i n D a l l a s County 
f i l e d a motion t o 
t r a n s f e r the a c t i o n t o D a l l a s County on t h e b a s i s o f t h e 
d o c t r i n e o f forum non c o n v e n i e n s . The J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t 
d e n i e d the motion t o t r a n s f e r , and t h i s 
C o u r t d e n i e d the 
d e f e n d a n t s ' 
subsequent 
p e t i t i o n 
f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. 
U n l i k e t h i s case, Yocum i n v o l v e d a c o n t r a c t d i s p u t e i n which 
the c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t t h e J e f f e r s o n County d e f e n d a n t s 
i n c l u d e d 
f r a u d , s u p p r e s s i o n , 
c o n v e r s i o n , and i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h b u s i n e s s 
r e l a t i o n s . 
T h i s C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e J e f f e r s o n 
C i r c u i t 
2See Ex p a r t e Autauga H e a t i n g & C o o l i n g , LLC, 58 So. 3d 
745 
( A l a . 2010); Ex p a r t e Kane, 989 So. 2d 509 ( A l a . 2008); Ex  
p a r t e Bama C o n c r e t e , 8 So. 3d 295 ( A l a . 2008); and Ex p a r t e  
F u l l e r , 955 So. 2d 414( A l a . 2006). 
11 
1110349 
C o u r t d i d not exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g the m o t i o n t o 
t r a n s f e r " [ b ] e c a u s e of the nexus between J e f f e r s o n County and 
the 
a l l e g e d 
p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f 
the 
two 
J e f f e r s o n 
County 
d e f e n d a n t s i n the a l l e g e d scheme t o o v e r c h a r g e Cahaba Timber 
so as t o d e f l a t e i t s p r o f i t s and hence the amount due 
[the 
p l a i n t i f f ] . " 
Ex p a r t e Yocum, 963 So. 2d a t 603. 
Thus, 
t h i s 
C o u r t d e n i e d the p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandamus s e e k i n g a 
t r a n s f e r of the case from J e f f e r s o n County not s i m p l y because 
two of the d e f e n d a n t s r e s i d e d or had a p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f 
b u s i n e s s i n J e f f e r s o n County, b u t because J e f f e r s o n County had 
a s u b s t a n t i a l c o n n e c t i o n t o the m a t t e r s g i v i n g 
r i s e t o the 
a c t i o n . 
H a l e y v i l l e i n v o l v e d an a c t i o n 
f i l e d i n M a r i o n County by 
a p l a i n t i f f who 
f e l l a t the Downtown M a l l of H a l e y v i l l e , w h i c h 
i s 
l o c a t e d i n W i n s t o n County. 
The d e f e n d a n t , the C i t y of 
H a l e y v i l l e , 
f i l e d a motion f o r a change of venue t o Winston 
County based on § 6-3-11, A l a . Code 1975, the s t a t u t e 
t h a t 
c o n t r o l s venue f o r c i v i l a c t i o n s f i l e d a g a i n s t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . 
Webster argues t h a t i n H a l e y v i l l e "the t r i a l 
c o u r t and 
t h i s 
C o u r t d i d not f e e l t h a t the i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e r e q u i r e d 
t h a t 
the p l a i n t i f f must p r o s e c u t e her case i n the c o u n t y where she 
12 
1110349 
f e l l r a t h e r t h a n h e r chosen forum." 
Webster's 
b r i e f , p. 10. 
In 
f a c t , t h i s C o u r t d i d 
n o t a d d r e s s t h e i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e 
f a c t o r 
i n H a l e y v i l l e 
because 
t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s 
motion 
t o 
t r a n s f e r the case was n o t based upon t h e d o c t r i n e o f forum non  
c o n v e n i e n s . 
The C i t y o f H a l e y v i l l e contended t h a t venue was 
improper i n 
M a r i o n County, n o t t h a t Winston County was a more 
a p p r o p r i a t e o r more c o n v e n i e n t forum. 
T h e r e f o r e , H a l e y v i l l e 
p r o v i d e s no s u p p o r t f o r 
Webster's 
p o s i t i o n . 
T h i s 
C o u r t has h e l d 
t h a t t h e " i n t e r e s t 
o f j u s t i c e " 
r e q u i r e s 
t r a n s f e r r i n g an a c t i o n t o a c o u n t y w i t h a s t r o n g 
c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e case as opposed t o k e e p i n g i t 
i n a c o u n t y 
w i t h an o v e r a l l weak c o n n e c t i o n . 
Chambers County's 
s o l e 
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e case -- t h a t i t 
i s 
t h e p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f 
b u s i n e s s o f S o u t h e a s t -- i s 
weak i n comparison t o Lee County's 
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e case. 
IV. 
C o n c l u s i o n 
Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we c o n c l u d e 
t h a t t h e 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t exceeded i t s 
d i s c r e t i o n i n 
d e n y i n g S o u t h e a s t and Smith's 
motion f o r 
a change o f venue based on t h e d o c t r i n e o f forum  
non 
c o n v e n i e n s . 
We 
t h e r e f o r e g r a n t S o u t h e a s t and Smith's 
p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus and d i r e c t t h e 
c i r c u i t 
13 
1110349 
c o u r t , 
i n t h e i n t e r e s t 
o f j u s t i c e , 
t o e n t e r an 
o r d e r 
t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e case from t h e 
Chambers C i r c u i t C o u r t t o t h e 
Lee C i r c u i t C o u r t . 
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. 
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, 
Main, and Wise, J J . , c o n c u r . 
Murdock, J . , d i s s e n t s . 
14 
1110349 
MURDOCK, J u s t i c e ( d i s s e n t i n g ) . 
I 
r e s p e c t f u l l y 
d i s s e n t from 
t o d a y ' s 
d e c i s i o n . 
As 
I 
e x p l a i n e d i n my 
s p e c i a l w r i t i n g i n Ex p a r t e Wachovia Bank, 
N.A., 
77 So. 3d 570 
( A l a . 2011) 
(Murdock, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) : 
"With t h i s C o u r t ' s r e c e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the 
' i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e ' prong of § 6-3-21.1, I b e l i e v e 
we 
l a r g e l y 
have 
n e g a t e d 
the 
i n t e n d e d 
f i e l d 
of 
o p e r a t i o n of s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s such as [ A l a . Code 
1975,] § 6 - 3 - 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) . 
See a l s o [ A l a . Code 1975,] § 
6-3-2(a)(2) 
( p r o v i d i n g f o r 
a c t i o n s 
on 
c o n t r a c t s 
b r o u g h t a g a i n s t an i n d i v i d u a l t o be commenced i n the 
county where the d e f e n d a n t 
r e s i d e s i f he 
or 
she 
m a i n t a i n s a permanent r e s i d e n c e i n t h a t c o u n t y ) ; § 
6-3-7(a)(2) ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t an a c t i o n may be b r o u g h t 
a g a i n s t 
a 
c o r p o r a t i o n 
i n 
the 
county 
of 
the 
c o r p o r a t i o n ' s p r i n c i p a l o f f i c e i n t h i s 
s t a t e ) . 
In 
e f f e c t , we have s u b s t i t u t e d a new 
p r e s u m p t i o n 
t h a t 
an a c t i o n cannot be 
t r i e d i n a county 
i f the 
o n l y 
c o n n e c t i o n between the 
l a w s u i t and 
the 
county 
i s 
t h a t the county i s the permanent r e s i d e n c e of one or 
more 
of 
the 
d e f e n d a n t s . 
We 
now 
c a l l 
such 
a 
c o n n e c t i o n 
a 'weak c o n n e c t i o n ' 
and, 
as 
a 
g e n e r a l 
r u l e , r e q u i r e the t r a n s f e r of the t o r t a c t i o n t o the 
county where the ' a c c i d e n t ' o c c u r r e d . . . . [
3 ] 
"  
3 I r o n i c a l l y , however, i n p r o d u c t s - l i a b i l i t y c a s e s , we 
do 
not t r e a t the county where an a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d as a county i n 
w h i c h "an event 
... 
g i v i n g 
r i s e t o the c l a i m " o c c u r r e d f o r 
purposes of the venue p r o v i s i o n found i n § 6 - 3 - 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . 
Code 1975. 
See Ex p a r t e S u z u k i M o b i l e , I n c . , 940 So. 2d 
1007 
( A l a . 
2006); Ex p a r t e V o l v o Trucks N o r t h A m e r i c a , 
I n c . , 
954 
So. 2d 583 
( A l a . 2006) . I have e x p r e s s e d my d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h 
t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n . See, e.g., Ex p a r t e F o r d Motor Co., 
47 
So. 
3d 
234, 
241 
( A l a . 2010) 
(Murdock, 
J . , c o n c u r r i n g 
i n 
the 
r e s u l t ) ; Ex p a r t e T h o m a s v i l l e Feed & Seed, I n c . , 74 So. 
3d 
940, 944 
( A l a . 2011) 
(Murdock, J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n the 
r e s u l t ) . 
15 
1110349 
" I n 
i n t e r p r e t i n g 
and 
a p p l y i n g 
the 
' i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e ' prong i n t h i s manner, we have, 
I b e l i e v e , g i v e n t h a t prong f a r g r e a t e r meaning 
and 
e f f e c t than i t has 
h i s t o r i c a l l y been u n d e r s t o o d 
by 
the bench and b a r t o have. Moreover, we have g i v e n 
i t 
an 
e f f e c t 
i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h 
the 
l e g i s l a t i v e 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n 
t h a t 
o t h e r 
s t a t u t o r i l y 
p r e s c r i b e d 
l o c a t i o n s f o r a c t i o n s under §§ 6-3-2 
and 
6-3-7 
are 
g e n e r a l l y and p r e s u m p t i v e l y 
a p p r o p r i a t e . " 
77 So. 3d a t 576-77. 
Today's 
d e c i s i o n 
p e r p e t u a t e s 
the 
a b o v e - d e s c r i b e d 
m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 
of 
the 
i n t e r e s t - o f - j u s t i c e 
prong 
of 
the 
forum non c o n v e n i e n s s t a t u t e . 
16