REL: 12/05/2014

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 , Ala b a ma Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other erro r s , in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter

.



# SUPRE ME CO URT O F ALA BAMA

OCTOB ER TE RM, 2 014-2 015

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 11311 52

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Ex pa rte L inda Faye Manni ng

PETIT ION F OR WR IT OF MAND AMUS

(In r e: S hanno n Ric hards on

v.

Linda Faye Mann ing)

(Maco n Cir cuit Court , CV- 14-90 0034)

WISE, Just ice.

Linda Faye Manni ng, the defen dant below , filed a petit ion

for a writ of m andam us re quest ing t hat t his C ourt direc t the11311 52

Macon Circu it Court to vacat e its order denyi ng her motio n to

trans fer this actio n to the Montg omery Circu it Court and to

enter an order grant ing the motio n. We grant the petit ion and

issue the writ.

Facts and Proce dural Hist ory

On Febru ary 28, 2014, Shann on Rich a r d son filed a
compl aint in the Macon Circu it Court again st Manni ng, stati ng

claim s of negli g e n c e and wanto nness as a resul t of a motor

vehic le accid ent that occur red in Montg omery Count y on Octob er
3, 2012. Richa rdson susta i n e d i n jurie s and was taken by

ambul ance to Bapti st South Hospi tal in Montg omery after the

accid ent. Law-e nforc ement pers o n n e l who respo nded to the

accid ent worke d in Montg omery Count y. At all mater ial times ,
Ric hards on was a resid ent of Montg omery Count y, and Manni ng

was a resi dent of Ma con C ounty

.

On March 25, 2014, Manni ng filed a motio n to trans fer the

actio n to Montg omery Count y based on the doctr ine of forum non

conve niens , as codif ied in § 6-3-2 1.1, Ala. Code 1975. On
April 1, 2014, Richa rdson filed a respo nse in op p ositi on to

the motio n to tran s f e r
. On June 4, 2014, the trial court

denie d the moti on to tran sfer. Thi s pet ition foll owed.

211311 52

Stand ard o f Rev iew

"A petit ion for a w r i t of manda mus is the appro priat e 'meth od for obtai ning revie w of a denia l of a motio n for a chang e of venue ' pursu ant to § 6–3–2 1.1. Ex parte Natio nal Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d 78 8, 78 9 (Al a. 19 98).

...

"'... .'

"'A party movin g for a trans fer under § 6–3–2 1.1 has the i n itial burde n of showi ng, among other thing s, o n e of two facto rs: (1) that the trans fer is justi fied based on the conve nienc e of eithe r the parti es or the witne sses, or (2) that the t ransf er is justi fied "in the inter est of j u s t i ce."' Ex parte India na Mills & Mfg., Inc., 10 So. 3d 536, 539 (Ala. 2008)

. Altho ug h w e revie w a rulin g on a motio n to trans fer to deter mine wheth er t he trial court excee ded its discr etion in grant ing or denyi ng the m otion , id., where 'the conve nienc e of the parti es and witne sses or the inter est o f justi ce would be best serve d by a trans fer, § 6–3–2 1.1, Ala. Code 1975, compe ls the trial court to trans fe r the actio n t o the alter nativ e forum .' Ex parte First Tenne ssee Bank Nat'l Ass'n , 9 9 4 S o. 2d 906, 912 (Ala. 2008 ) (em phasi s add ed)."

Ex parte Wacho via Bank, N.A., 77 So. 3d 570, 573 (Ala. 2011)

.
Discu ssion

Manni ng argue s t h a t the trial court excee ded its

discr etion in d enyin g her moti on to tran sfer the a ction from

Macon Count y to Montg omery Count y. Speci fical ly, she conte nds

that Montg omery Count y has a stron g c onnec tion to the case

becau se all the mater ial event s that gave rise to Richa rdson 's

311311 52

claim s occur red there

. In contr ast, Manni ng asser ts that

Macon Count y has, at best, o n l y a tenuo us conne ction to the

case -- namel y, the fact that she resid es there

. After notin g

that the court decid ing the trans fer issue must consi der "the

burde n of pilin g court servi ces and resou rces upon the peopl e

of a count y that is not affec ted by the ca s e a n d

... the

inter est of the peopl e of a count y to have a case that arise s

in th eir c ounty trie d clo se to publ ic vi ew in thei r cou nty,"

Ex parte Smith s Water & Sewer Auth. , 982 So. 2d 484, 490 (Ala.

2007) , Man ning asser ts th at th e int erest -of-j ustic e pro ng of

Alaba ma's forum non conve niens statu te manda tes a trans fer to

Montg omery Coun ty.

Secti on 6-3-2 1.1, Ala. Code 1975, provi des, in perti nent

part:

"With respe ct to civil actio ns fil e d in an appro priat e venue , any court of gener al juris dicti on shall , for the conve nienc e of parti es and witne sses,
or in the inter est of justi ce, trans fer a n y civil actio n or any claim in any civil actio n to any court of gener al juris dicti on in whi c h the actio n might have been prope rly filed and the case shall proce ed as th ough origi nally file d the rein. "

(Emph asis added .)

"Hist orica lly, the plain tiff has had the initi al choic e of venue under the syste m estab lishe d by the legis latur e for deter mi n i n g venue
. Befor e the

411311 52

enac tment of § 6–3–2 1.1 by the Alaba ma Legis latur e in 1987, a plaintiff 's choic e of venue could not be distu rbed on the basis of conve nienc e to the parti es
or the witne sses or in the inter est of j u s t i ce. With the adopt ion o f § 6–3–2 1.1, trial court s now have 'the power and the duty to trans fer a cause when "the inter est of justi ce" requi res a trans fer.' Ex parte First Famil y Fin. Servs ., Inc., 718 So. 2d 658, 6 6 0 (Ala. 1998) (emph asis added ). In First Famil y, this Court noted that an argum ent that trial judge s have almos t unlim ited discr etion in deter minin g wheth er a case shoul d be trans ferre d under § 6–3–2 1.1 'must be consi dered in light of the fact that the Legis latur e used the word "shal l" inste ad of the word "may" in § 6–3–2 1.1.' 718 So. 2 d at 660. This Court has furth er held t h a t 'Alab ama's forum non conve niens statu te is compu lsory .' Ex parte Sawye r, 892 So. 2d 8 9 8 , 905 n.9 ( Ala. 2004) ."

Ex parte Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, LLC, 58 So. 3d 745, 748-4 9

(Ala. 2010 ).

"The 'inte rest of justi ce' prong o f § 6–3–2 1.1 requi res 'the trans fer of the actio n from a count y with littl e, if any, conne ction to the actio n , to the count y with a stron g conne ction to the actio n.' Ex parte Natio nal Sec. Ins. Co

. , 7 27 So. 2d [788, ] 790 [(Ala

. 19 9 8 ) ]

. There fore, 'in analy zing the inter est-o f-jus tice prong of § 6–3–2 1.1, this Court foc u s e s on wheth er the "nexu s" or "conn ectio n" be t w e e n the plain tiff' s actio n and the origi nal forum is stron g enoug h to warra nt burde ning the plain tiff' s forum with the actio n.' Ex parte First Tenne ssee Bank Nat'l Ass ' n , 994 So. 2d 906, 911 (Ala. 2008)

. Addit ional ly, this Court has held that 'liti gatio n shoul d be handl ed in the forum where the injur y occurred .' Ex parte Fulle r, 955 So. 2d 414, 416 (Ala. 2006)

. Furth er, in exami ning wheth er it is in the inter est of justi ce to trans fer a case, we consi der 'the burde n of pilin g cour t servi ces and

511311 52

resou rces upon the peopl e of a count y th a t i s not affec ted by the case and

... the inter est of the peopl e of a count y to have a case that arise s in their count y tried close to publi c view in t h e ir count y.' Ex parte Smi t h s Water & Sewer Auth. , 982 So. 2 d 484 , 490 (Ala . 200 7)."

Ex parte India na Mills & Mfg., Inc., 10 So. 3d 536, 540 (Ala.

2008)

.
The parti es do not dispu te that the compl a i n t w as filed

in an appro priat e venue , namel y, Macon Count y. Likew ise, they

do not dispu te that the actio n could prope rly have been filed

in Montg omery C o u n t y
. Howev er, they do dispu te wheth er the 1

inter est-o f-jus tice prong of § 6-3-2 1.1 requi res a trans fer of

this case from Macon Coun ty to Mont gomer y Cou nty.

With regar d to venue of actio ns again st indiv idua l s , § 1 6-3-2 , Ala . Cod e 197 5, pr ovide s, in pert inent part :

"(a) In proce e d i n gs of a legal natur e again st indiv idual s:

"....

"(3) All other perso nal actio ns [i.e. , those not ident ified in subpa ragra phs (1) and (2)] if the de f e n d ant or one of the defen dants has withi n the state a perma nent resid e n c e , may be comme nced in the count y of such resid ence or in the count y in which the act or omiss ion compl ained of may have been done or ma y hav e occ urred ."

611311 52

As Manni ng point s out in her reply brief , this C o u r t

recen tly addre ssed a factu ally si m i lar case and simil ar

argum ents in Ex part e Mor ton, [Ms. 11303 02, A ugust 29, 2014]

___ So. 3d
___ (Ala. 20 1 4 )

. In Ex parte Morto n, Watki ns, a

resid ent of Jeffe rson Count y, filed a compl aint in the Green e

Circu i t Court again st Morto n, a resid ent of Green e Count y,

asser ting claim s that arose out of an autom obile accid ent that

had occur red in Jeffe rson Count y. After the accid ent, Watki ns

was treat ed at a hosp ital in Jeffe rson Count y and later

recei ved medic al tr e a tment at four healt h-car e facil ities

locat ed in J effer son Count y. Morto n filed a motio n to

trans fer the case to Jeffe rson Count y based on the doctr ine of

forum non conve niens ; the trial court denie d that motio n, and

Morto n pet ition ed th is Co urt f or a writ of ma ndamu s.

This Court grant ed Morto n's petit ion and issue d the writ,

reaso ning, in r eleva nt pa rt:

"In revie wing this case under the inter est-o f-jus tice prong of § 6–3–2 1.1(a ), we must 'dete rmine wheth er "the inter est of justi ce"

o verri des the defer ence due the plain tiff' s choic e of forum ' in the p r esent case. [Ex parte ] J & W Enter s., [ LLC, [Ms. 11214 23, March 28, 2014] ]

___ So. 3d [___, ] ___ [(Ala

. 20 1 4 ) ]

. We hold that it does.

711311 52

"In Ex parte Wacho via [Bank , N.A., 77 So. 2d 570

(Ala. 2011 )], this Court thoro ughly discu ssed the appli catio n of the inter est-o f-jus tice prong of § 6–3–2 1.1(a ) in sever al cases invol ving facts simil ar to th ose p resen ted i n thi s cas e:

"'In its petit ion for the wr i t of manda mus, Wacho via relie s solel y on the inter est-o f-jus tice prong as a groun d for trans fer.

" ' " ' [ I ] n a n a l y z i n g t h e inter est-o f-jus tice prong of § 6–3–2 1.1, this Cour t focus es on
w h e t h e r t h e " n e x u s " o r

" c o n n e c t i o n " b e t w e e n t h e plain tiff' s a ction and the origi nal forum is stro ng enoug h to warra nt burde ning the p laint iff's forum with th e actio n.' Ex parte First Tenne ssee Bank Nat'l Ass' n, 994 So. 2d [906, ] 911 [(Ala

. 2008) ].... Furth er, in exami ning wheth er it is in the inter es t of justi ce to trans fer a case, we consi der 'the bu r den of pilin g court servi ces and resou rces upon the peopl e of a count y that is not a f fecte d by the case and

... the inter est of the peop le of a count y to have a case that arise s in their count y tried close to publi c view in their count y.' Ex parte Smith s Water & Sewer Auth. , 982 So. 2d 484, 490 (Ala. 2007) ."

"'Ex parte India na Mills [& Mfg., Inc.] , 10 So. 3d [536] at 540 [(Ala

. 2008 ) ]

. Thus, the dispo sitiv e quest ion is wheth er the

nexus betwe en this actio n and Macon Count y is "stro ng enoug h to warra nt burde ning"

811311 52

M a con Count y with this actio n. For t h e follo wing reaso ns, we hold that it is not.

"'Lee Count y is the s i tus of all the alleg ed acts o r omiss ions givin g rise to the plain tiffs ' claim s. A n y alleg edly unaut horiz ed withd rawal s were made from a Wacho via branc h in Lee Count y. Polic e inves tigat ion of the matte r was condu cted in Lee Count y. Lee Count y is Floyd 's place of resid ence, as well as the locat i on of Uniqu e [Imag e Pro Car Care, Floyd 's busin ess]. Thus, Lee Count y is the place where all the injur y a l l eged in the compl aint occur red. Al t h o ugh it is not a talis man, the fact that the injur y occur red in the propo sed trans feree count y is often assig ned cons i derab le weigh t in an inter est-o f-jus tice analy sis. See Ex parte Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, LLC, 58 So. 3d 745, 7 4 8 (Ala. 2010) ("'[T ]his Court has held that "liti gatio n shoul d be handl ed in the forum where the injur y occur red." '" (quot ing Ex parte India na Mills , 10 So. 3d at 540)) ; Ex parte McKen zie Oil, Inc., 13 So. 3 d 346 , 349 (Ala . 200 8) (s ame).

"'In short , nothi ng mater ial to this

case trans pired in Macon Count y. Macon Count y's sole mater ial conta ct with this

case is that the two indiv idual defen dants

... resid e there

. Recen t cases decid ed under the inter est-o f-jus tice prong a re dispo sitiv e.

"'In Ex parte Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, LLC, for examp le, this Court i ssued a writ of manda mus direc ting t h e Montg omery Circu it Court -- in the inter est

o f justi ce -- to trans fer the actio n t o E lmore Count y. 58 So. 3d at 747. Th a t

case arose out of an a u t omobi le accid ent

911311 52

invol ving Lori Lee Wrigh t , a resid ent of Elmor e Count y, and Richa rd Alexa nder Roger s, a resid ent of Montg omery Count y. The vehic le being opera ted by Roger s at the time of the accid ent was owned by Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, LLC ("Aut auga" ), which had its princ ipal place of busin e ss in Autau ga Count y. The accid ent occur red in Elmor e Count y, and Wrigh t recei ved treat ment at the scene of the accid ent from emerg ency medic al perso nnel who lived in Elmor e Count y. 58 So. 3d at 749. When an actio n was broug ht again st R o g e rs in the count y of his resid ence, Roger s sough t the

remov al of the actio n to Elmor e Count y, the situs of the alleg ed acts or omiss ions and the p lace of th e inj ury.

"'Thi s Court concl uded that a trans fer of the case was requi r e d

. In so doing , we said:

"'" Altho ugh we agree with Wrigh t that the case has a
conne ction with Montg omery Count y becau se Roger s is a resid ent of Montg omery Count y and [Auta uga]

m a y h a v e s o m e b u s i n e s s
conne ction s t here,

... the

o v e r a l l c o n n e c t i o n betwe e n Montg omery Count y and th is case is weak and

... the conne ction betwe en the case an d Elmor e Count y is stron g.

"'"..

. Besid es the fact that Roger s is a res ident of Montg o mery Count y, there was no other evide nce befor e the tria l court i n dicat ing a conne ction betwe en the case and Montg omery Count y.

1011311 52

"'"..

..

"'"Th e accid ent under lying this actio n occur red in E l more Count y, and the emerg e ncy perso nnel who respo n ded to the accid ent were from Elmor e Count y. T he plain tiff herse lf is a resid ent of Elmor e Count y. This Court sees no need to burde n Montg omery Count y, with its weak

conne ction to the case, with an
a ction that arose in Elmor e Count y simpl y becau se the indiv idual d efend ant resid es in Montg omer y Count y and the corpo rate def e ndant does some busin ess t here. "

"'58 So. 3 d at 750 ( empha sis a dded)

. "'In so holding , this Court relied on and d iscus sed Ex parte India na Mills & Manuf actur ing, Inc.:

"'"Th is Court addre ssed sim ilar facts in Ex parte India na Mills & Manuf actur ing, Inc., supra
. In India na Mills , the deced ent was drivi ng a garba ge truck in Lee Count y owned by his emplo yer when the raise d rear door of the truck struc k an overh ead railr oad t r e stle, causi ng the truck to crash

. The deced ent wa s kille d when he was eject ed from the truck

. His widow filed a compl aint in Macon Count y again st the manuf actur ers of the garba ge truck and the seat belt s in the truck and three emplo yees of the d e c e d e n t ' s e m p l o y e r
. T h e

1111311 52
emplo yer's princ ipal place of b usine ss was in Talla poos a Count y. The emplo yer condu cted busin ess in Macon Count y, and one of the indiv idua l defen dants l ived in Macon Count y. Th e defen dants moved the trial court to trans fer the case to Lee Count y based on the doctr ine of forum non conve n iens. The trial court denie d that motio n, and the defen dants p etiti oned this Court for m andam us re lief.

"'"Th is Court gra nted the defen dants ' manda mus petit ion and order ed the t rial court to trans fer the case from Macon Count y to Lee Count y based on the 'inte rest of justi ce' prong of § 6–3–2 1.1. In doing so, this Court noted that t h e accid ent

occur red in Lee Count y, that the law-e nforc ement and emerg ency perso nnel who had resp o nded to the accid ent were based out of Lee Count y, that the chief deput y
coron er who inves ti gated the deced ent's death did his work in Lee Count y, and that the recor ds and docum ents o f the fire depar tment that respo nded to the accid ent were locat ed in Lee C o u nty. Compa ring this to the fact that only one of the ind i vidua l defen dants resid ed in Macon Count y and t hat the emplo yer c onduc ted busin ess there , there being no other relev ant facts invol ving Macon Count y, this Court held that the

nexus betwe en Lee Count y and the

1211311 52

case was stron g, that the nexus betwe en Macon Count y and the case
was weak, and that the trial

c ourt thus had excee ded its discr etion in refus ing to trans fer the case to Lee Count y."

"'E x p arte Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, 58 So. 3d at 750 (disc ussin g Ex parte India na Mills ) (em phasi s add ed).

"'In this case, as in Autauga Heat ing & Cooli ng and India na Mills , the inju r y
occur red in the coun t y t o which the t ransf er is sough t. Here, as in Autau g a H eatin g & Cooli ng and India na Mills , n o mater ial act or o m i ssion occur red in the forum count y. As in India na Mills , the offic ial inves tigat ion of the incid ent was i n the count y to which the trans fer w a s sough t -- here, Lee Count y.'

"77 S o. 3d at 5 73–75

.

"As in Wacho v ia, Ex parte Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, LLC, 58 So. 3d 745 ( A la. 2010) , and Ex parte India na Mills & Manuf actur ing, Inc., 10 So. 3d 536 (Ala. 2008 ) , Watki ns's injur y occur red in the count y to which trans fer is sough t -- Jeffe rson Count y; Watki ns is also a resid ent of Jeffe rson Count y and recei ved trea t m e nt in four separ ate medic al facil ities locat ed in Jeffe rson Count y. Addit ional ly, as in Wacho via and India na Mills , the offic ial inves tigat ion of the incid ent was condu cted in the count y to which the trans f e r i s sough t. Furth ermor e , a s in Wacho via, Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, and India na Mills , no mater i al act or omiss ion o ccurr ed in Gree ne Co unty.

"Watk ins argue s that Wacho via, Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, and India na Mills are disti nguis hable becau se each of those cases inv o l ved multi ple

1311311 52

defen dants resid ing in both the forum and trans feree count ies. Altho ugh the numbe r and resid ency of the defen dants may affec t an inter est-o f-jus tice analy sis under § 6–3–2 1.1(a ), the fact that the above cases invol v ed multi ple defen dants does not rende r them inapp osite to the prese nt case invol ving only one defen dant. Consi derin g the simil ariti es betwe en the above cases an d the prese nt one, that factu al disti nctio n in this case -- that Morto n is the sole defen dant -- is de minim is. S e e , e.g., Wacho via, 77 So. 3d at 575 ('As in [Auta uga Heati ng & Cooli ng and India na Mills ], the only mater ial

conne ction with the for u m count y is a defen dant' s resid ence. To be sure, in this case two defen dants resid e in the forum count y, rathe r than on e
. Given the postu re of this case, howev er, that disti nctio n is in conse quent ial.' ).

"For the reaso ns expla ined above , Jeffe rson Count y ha s a signi fican tly stron ger conne ction to this case than d oes Green e Count y, which is

conne cted to this case only by the fact that Morto n resid es there -- a con n e c t i on this Court has chara cteri zed as 'weak .' See Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, 58 So. 3d at 750 ('Thi s Court sees no need to burde n Montg omery Count y, with its weak

conne ction to the case, with an actio n that arose in Elmor e Count y simpl y becau se the indiv idual defen dant resid es in M o ntgom ery Count y and the corpo rate defen dant does some busin ess there .'); India na Mills , 10 So. 3d at 542 ('We see no need for Macon C o u n t y, with its weak conne ction with this case, to be b u r d e ned with an actio n that arose in Lee Count y simpl y becau se one of sever al defen dants

r e sides there

. Inste ad, Lee Count y clear ly has a stron g conn e ction with this case. See Ex parte Verbe na Unite d Metho dist Churc h, 953 So. 2d 395, 400 (Ala. 2006) (hold ing that the "weak nexus " with the count y in which an actio n was filed did not "just ify burde ning" that count y w i th the trial of that actio n; thus, the doctr ine of foru m non conve niens requi red the case be trans ferre d to a count y that

1411311 52

had "a much stron ger nexus ").')

. Accor dingl y, the inter est o f justi ce overr ides Watki ns's choic e of forum

. There fore, Morto n has a clear legal right to the r elief she seeks ."

Ex pa rte M orton , ___ So. 3d at
___ (foot note omitt ed).

Based on the r e a s oning in Ex parte Morto n and the cases

cited there in, Manni ng has estab lishe d that Montg omery Count y

has a stron ger conne ction to the claim s in this case than has

Macon Cou n ty. The accid ent occur red in Montg omery Count y;

law-e nforc ement perso nnel who respo nded to the accid ent worke d

in Montg omer y Count y; Richa rdson was taken to a hospi tal in

Montg omery Coun t y after the accid ent; and Richa rdson was a

r e siden t of Montg omery Count y. In contr ast, Macon Count y's 2

only conne ction to t h e c a s e was the fact that Manni ng is a

resid ent of Macon Count y. Becau se Macon Count y has only a

very weak overa ll conne ction to the claim s and M ontgo mery

Count y has a much stron ge r c o n n e ction to the claim s, the

In her petit ion, Manni ng cites addit ional "fact s " that 2 alleg edly suppo rt a trans fer t o Mon tgome ry Co unty. How ever, becau s e those "fact s" were "cont ained in 'stat ement s of

couns el in moti ons, brief s, an d arg ument s,' [ they] cann ot be consi dered 'evid entia r y m ateri al' and thus will not be consi dered by this Court ." Autau ga Heati ng & Cooli ng, 58 So. 3d at 749- 50.

1511311 52

inter est-o f-jus tice prong of the forum non conve niens statu te
requi res that the actio n be trans ferre d to Montg omery Count y.

Concl usion

For the above -stat ed reaso ns, we concl ude that the trial

court excee ded its discr etion in denyi ng Manni ng's motio n for

a chang e of v enue based on the inter est-o f-jus tice prong of

the forum non conve niens statu te. Accor din g l y , we grant

M a n ning' s petit ion for the writ of manda mus and direc t th e

trial court , in the inter est of justi ce, to enter an order

tran s f e r r ing the case from the Macon Circu it Court to the

Montg omery Circ uit C ourt.

PETIT ION G RANTE D; WR IT IS SUED.

Stuar t, Bolin , Parke r, Shaw, Main, and Bryan , JJ.,

concu r.

Moore , C.J ., an d Mur dock, J., disse nt.

16