Title: Ex parte McKenzie Oil Company, Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF PROHIBITION: CIVIL (In re: Lee Harris Franklin v. Gary Dewayne Heathcock and McKenzie Oil Company, Inc.)

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL:8/22/2008
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
SPECIAL TERM, 2008
_________________________
1071011 and 1071021
_________________________
Ex parte McKenzie Oil Company, Inc.
and
Ex parte Gary Dewayne Heathcock
PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re:  Lee Harris Franklin
v.
Gary Dewayne Heathcock and McKenzie Oil Company, Inc.)
(Barbour Circuit Court, CV-07-900036)
1071011 & 1071021
2
SMITH, Justice.
McKenzie Oil Company, Inc. ("McKenzie"), and Gary Dewayne
Heathcock, defendants in an action pending in the Barbour
Circuit Court, petition for a writ of mandamus directing the
trial court to transfer the case to the Escambia Circuit Court
on the basis of forum non conveniens.  We grant the petition
and issue the writ. 
Facts and Procedural History
In the early morning hours of September 24, 2006,
Heathcock was allegedly driving a vehicle that collided with
a vehicle driven by Lee Harris Franklin.  The accident
occurred on Alabama Highway 21 near the City of Atmore in
Escambia County.  Franklin was injured in the accident and was
transported to Atmore 
Community Hospital. 
 
Heathcock
subsequently pleaded guilty in an Escambia County court to a
charge of reckless driving stemming from the accident.
According to the allegations in the materials before us,
McKenzie operated a convenience store in Escambia County
referred to in the documents before us as "Atmore Interstate
BP."  It is alleged that Heathcock, while he was visibly
intoxicated, purchased alcoholic beverages at this store
1071011 & 1071021
3
before 
the 
accident. 
 The 
accident, 
apparently 
by 
coincidence,
occurred in front of the Atmore Interstate BP convenience
store several hours after the alleged sale.  
Franklin is a resident of Clarke County.  In January
2007, Franklin sued Heathcock in the Clarke Circuit Court,
seeking damages for, among other things, Heathcock's alleged
negligence and wantonness.  Before Heathcock was served with
the complaint, Franklin moved to dismiss the case; in July
2007, 
the 
Clarke 
Circuit 
Court 
dismissed 
the 
complaint 
without
prejudice. 
On August 28, 2007, Franklin filed a new complaint, this
time naming both Heathcock and McKenzie as defendants, in the
circuit court in Barbour County, where McKenzie's corporate
headquarters is located.  Against Heathcock, Franklin sought
damages for negligent, wanton, and willful conduct.  Against
McKenzie, Franklin sought damages under the Dram Shop Act,
Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-71. 
McKenzie answered the complaint and, as an affirmative
defense, alleged that venue in the Barbour Circuit Court was
neither appropriate nor convenient.  McKenzie subsequently
filed a motion to transfer the case to the Escambia Circuit
1071011 & 1071021
4
Court on the basis of forum non conveniens.  The motion was
supported by a brief and by evidentiary exhibits.  Franklin
responded to the motion, and the Barbour Circuit Court held a
hearing on December 4, 2007.  When it was discovered that
Heathcock had not yet been served with a complaint, the trial
court entered the following notation in the case-action
summary: "Attorneys to do more discovery." 
Heathcock was ultimately served with the complaint; he
later also filed a motion to transfer the case to Escambia
County on the basis of forum non conveniens.  A hearing was
set for this motion; before the hearing was held, McKenzie
filed a "Motion for Clarification," asking the trial court to
clarify whether the notation in the case-action summary
stating that the attorneys were "to do more discovery"
directed the parties to conduct discovery on the merits or
whether such discovery should be limited to the issue of
venue. 
On March 12, 2008, the trial court held a hearing on
Heathcock's motion to transfer and McKenzie's "Motion for
Clarification."  That day, the trial court entered an order
stating: "Merits and venue discovery to continue. Venue to be
1071011 & 1071021
5
decided post discovery."  McKenzie filed a petition in this
Court for a writ of mandamus, and the next day Heathcock also
filed a petition for the writ of mandamus in this Court, in
essence joining McKenzie's petition (hereinafter McKenzie and
Heathcock will be referred to collectively as "McKenzie").
Standard of Review
"'The proper method for obtaining review of a
denial of a motion for a change of venue in a civil
action is to petition for the writ of mandamus.'  Ex
parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d 788, 789
(Ala. 1998).  A writ of mandamus is appropriate when
the petitioner can demonstrate '(1) a clear legal
right to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty
upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a
refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate
remedy; and (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of
the court.'  Ex parte BOC Group, Inc., 823 So. 2d
1270, 1272 (Ala. 2001).  Additionally, this Court
reviews mandamus petitions challenging a ruling on
venue on the basis of forum non conveniens by asking
whether the trial court exceeded its discretion.  Ex
parte Fuller, 955 So. 2d 414 (Ala. 2006); Ex parte
Verbena United Methodist Church, 953 So. 2d 395
(Ala. 2006).  Our review is limited to only those
facts that were before the trial court.  Ex parte
Pike Fabrication, Inc., 859 So. 2d 1089, 1091 (Ala.
2002)."
Ex parte Kane, [Ms. 1060528, February 15, 2008] ___ So. 2d
___,___ (Ala. 2008).
Discussion
Alabama Code 1975, § 6-3-21.1, Alabama's forum non
1071011 & 1071021
The parties make no argument before this Court that this
1
action was not "filed in an appropriate venue."  
6
conveniens statute, provides when an action must be
transferred under the doctrine of forum non conveniens:
"With 
respect 
to 
civil 
actions 
filed 
in 
an
appropriate venue, any court of general jurisdiction
shall, for the convenience of parties and witnesses,
or in the interest of justice, transfer any civil
action or any claim in any civil action to any court
of general jurisdiction in which the action might
have been properly filed and the case shall proceed
as though originally filed therein. ..."
Ala. Code 1975, § 6-3-21.1(a).
A party moving for a transfer under § 6-3-21.1 has the
initial burden of showing, among other things, that the
transfer is justified based either on the convenience of the
parties and witnesses or in the "interest of justice."  Ex
parte Masonite Corp., 789 So. 2d 830, 831 (Ala. 2001); Ex
parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d 788, 789 (Ala. 1998).
In its motions for a change of venue, McKenzie argued that
both the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the
interest of justice required a transfer of the case to
Escambia County.   Because McKenzie has demonstrated that the
1
interest of justice requires a transfer in this case, we do
not address the convenience of the parties and witnesses.
1071011 & 1071021
7
"This Court has held that litigation should be handled in
the forum where the injury occurred."  Ex parte Fuller, 955
So. 2d 414, 416 (Ala. 2006), citing  Ex parte Sawyer, 892 So.
2d 898, 904 (Ala. 2004).  Furthermore, the "interest of
justice" prong of § 6-3-21.1 requires "the transfer of the
action from a county with little, if any, connection to the
action, to the county with a strong connection to the action."
Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d at 790.  Thus, "in
analyzing the interest-of-justice prong of § 6-3-21.1, this
Court focuses on whether the 'nexus' or 'connection' between
the plaintiff's action and the original forum is strong enough
to warrant burdening the plaintiff's forum with the action."
Ex parte First Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n, [Ms. 1061392, April
11, 2008] ___ So. 2d ___,___ (Ala. 2008).  McKenzie therefore
had the burden of demonstrating "'that having the case heard
in [Escambia] County would more serve the interest of justice
....'"  Ex parte First Tennessee Bank, ___ So. 2d at ___
(quoting Ex parte Fuller, 955 So. 2d at 416).
Franklin 
points 
out 
that 
McKenzie's 
corporate
headquarters is located in Barbour County; thus, Franklin
claims that Barbour County and its citizens have an interest
1071011 & 1071021
8
in McKenzie's "well-being" and a "significant interest in
whether McKenzie" has fulfilled its obligations as a vendor of
alcoholic beverages.  
We agree that McKenzie has "a connection" with Barbour
County 
by 
virtue 
of 
the 
location 
of 
its 
corporate
headquarters.  However, we find this connection to Barbour
County to be "little" and the connection with Escambia County
to be "strong."  Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., supra.
First, we note that the courts of Escambia County have
been invoked to punish the traffic violation arising from the
accident.  Cf. Kane, ___ So. 2d ___ (holding, in part, that
the interest of justice required a transfer to a forum where
a related action involving the same incident and the same
witnesses was pending).
Additionally, we note that virtually none of the events
or circumstances involved in this case occurred in or relate
to Barbour County.  Specifically, the accident giving rise to
Franklin's claims and the alleged tortious conduct by both
Heathcock and McKenzie took place in Escambia County.  Law-
enforcement 
personnel 
and 
medical 
personnel 
in 
Escambia 
County
investigated the accident and treated Franklin's injuries.
1071011 & 1071021
9
Additionally, 
the 
employees 
of 
McKenzie 
who 
allegedly 
violated
the Dram Shop Act work not at the corporate headquarters in
Barbour County but at the Atmore Interstate BP convenience
store, which actually conducts business for McKenzie in
Escambia County.  Heathcock resides in Escambia County.  For
all that appears, all material events in this case, including
the accident, occurred in Escambia County.
Given this small nexus and little connection with the
facts of this case to Barbour County and the strong connection
with Escambia County, we hold that hearing the case in
Escambia County "would more serve the interest of justice."
Ex parte First Tennessee Bank, supra.  Therefore, McKenzie has
demonstrated that the action is due to be transferred to
Escambia County under Ala. Code 1975, § 6-3-21.1. 
"Alabama's forum non conveniens statute is compulsory.
See Ex parte Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 721 So. 2d 1135,
1138 (Ala. 1998) ('The word "shall" is clear and unambiguous
and is imperative and mandatory.')."  Ex parte Sawyer, 892 So.
2d 898, 905 n.9. (Ala. 2004).  The language of § 6-3-21.1(a)
requires that the trial court "shall" transfer an action when
the statute so requires.  In this case, McKenzie had
1071011 & 1071021
10
demonstrated that the action is due to be transferred to
Escambia County.  Instead of transferring the action, the
trial court ordered discovery to continue.  There is no
argument presented that discovery on the issue of forum non
conveniens was required, and the materials before us do not so
indicate; therefore, the trial court exceeded its discretion
in refusing to transfer the case to Escambia County.
Conclusion 
Both McKenzie's and Heathcock's petitions for the writ of
mandamus are granted, and the trial court is directed to
transfer the case to the Escambia Circuit Court.
1071011--PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
1071021--PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
See, Woodall, Bolin, and Parker, JJ., concur.  
Cobb, C.J., recuses herself.