Title: Ex Parte General Nutrition Corp.
Citation: 855 So. 2d 475
Docket Number: 1011760, 1011861, 1011882
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: February 7, 2003

855 So. 2d 475 (2003)
Ex parte GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION and
Ex parte Phoenix Laboratories, Inc. and
Ex parte Cytodyne Technologies, Inc.
(In re Richard Gregory, as administrator of the estate of Shannon Gregory, deceased v. Cytodyne Technologies, Inc., et al.)
1011760, 1011861, and 1011882.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
February 7, 2003.
*477 H.E. Nix, Jr., and S. Anthony Higgins of Nix, Holtsford, Gilliland, Higgins &amp; Hitson, P.C., Montgomery, for petitioner General Nutrition Corporation.
Beverly P. Baker and James A. Patton, Jr., of Haskell, Slaughter, Young &amp; Rediker, L.L.C., Birmingham; and Stephen R. Stern of Hoffinger, Stern &amp; Ross, L.L.P., New York City, New York, for petitioner Phoenix Laboratories, Inc.
Robert M. Girardeau and J. Allen Sydnor, Jr., of Huie, Fernambucq &amp; Stewart, L.L.P., Birmingham, for petitioner Cytodyne Technologies, Inc.
David F. Miceli, Jere L. Beasley, and Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis &amp; Miles, P.C., Montgomery; and P. Richard Hartley of Hartley &amp; Hickman, Greenville, for respondent.
HARWOOD, Justice.
The petitioners in this case, General Nutrition Corporation ("GNC"), Phoenix Laboratories, Inc. ("Phoenix"), and Cytodyne Technologies, Inc. ("Cytodyne"), are defendants in a wrongful-death action filed in the Circuit Court of Butler County, Alabama. The action was filed on November 29, 2001, by Richard Gregory, individually and as the administrator of the estate of his deceased wife, Shannon Gregory, pursuant to the wrongful-death statute of the state of Virginia. The petitioners responded to Gregory's action by filing a joint motion to dismiss, based upon improper venue, arguing that the doctrine of forum non conveniens, codified in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-430, required that the trial court dismiss the case so that it could be refiled in Virginia. In the joint motion the petitioners consented to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in Newport News, Virginia, and committed to waive assertion of a statute-of-limitations defense if Gregory refiled the action in Virginia within 60 days of the trial court's entry of an order of dismissal. On May 9, 2002, the trial court held a hearing on the motion, and on May 31, 2002, denied it. The trial court's May 31 order stated, in pertinent part:
The petitioners filed the instant petitions[1] for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its order denying their motion to dismiss the wrongful-death action based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens and further directing the trial court to "dismiss this case for transfer to Newport News, Virginia."
The proper method for obtaining review of a denial of a motion for a change of venue in a civil action is by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus. Ex parte Alabama Great Southern R.R., 788 So. 2d 886 (Ala.2000).
Ex parte State ex rel. C.M., 828 So. 2d 291, 293 (Ala.2002). "Whether to dismiss an action based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling on that issue will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion." Ex parte United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 688 So. 2d 246, 249 (Ala.1997). Further, this Court's review is limited to only those facts that were before the trial court. Ex parte National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d 788, 789 (Ala.1998); Ex parte American Res. Ins. Co., 663 So. 2d 932, 936 (Ala.1995).
The record shows that Shannon died on April 4, 2001, while exercising at a high school running track in Newport News, Virginia. The autopsy report stated, among other things, that "[h]er death is consistent with a sudden cardiac death." Before her death, Shannon had been taking the dietary supplement Xenadrine RFA-1, which contains ephedra.[2] Xenadrine RFA-1 is manufactured by both Cytodyne and Phoenix and was allegedly purchased by Shannon at a GNC retail store located in Newport News. After Shannon's death, Richard received a military hardship transfer from the United States Air Force, his employer, and moved his family back to Greenville, Alabama, in Butler County, where both Richard and Shannon were reared. GNC, Phoenix, and Cytodyne are foreign corporations with their principal places of business located in Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, respectively.
The petitioners argue that this action should be dismissed under the provisions of Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-430, which provides:
As this Court stated in Ex parte Preston Hood Chevrolet, Inc., 638 So. 2d 842 (Ala. 1994):
638 So. 2d  at 845 (emphasis added). The petitioners assert that they have met the threshold requirements in § 6-5-430 by showing (1) that the claim arose outside Alabama and (2) that an alternative forum exists. In addition, they argue that the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as well as the interests of justice, require the dismissal of the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens because Shannon's death occurred in Newport News, Virginia, and most of the evidentiary material and witnesses, except for Shannon's family, are located in Newport *480 News. We now consider whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to dismiss the case under Alabama's doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Although the petitioners argue that many, if not all, of the acts giving rise to the action occurred in Newport News, Virginia, "that fact alone does not warrant a dismissal based on § 6-5-430." Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So. 2d 497, 499 (Ala. 1995). Moreover, Gregory contends that several acts relevant to Shannon's death occurred outside Virginia. Before the trial court, in the May 9, 2002, hearing, Gregory's counsel made the following argument:
The petitioners argue that this factor is important because, they say, the majority, if not all, of the records and documents necessary in this case are located outside Alabama. However, "`[a] party who claims that the location of documents is a consideration in a forum non conveniens dispute must make a showing on the factors such as volume, necessity, and inconvenience that would support such a claim.'" Ex parte Nichols, 757 So. 2d 374, 378 (Ala.1999)(quoting Ex parte Wiginton, 743 So. 2d 1071, 1076 (Ala.1999)). The petitioners offered no evidence to the trial court regarding these factors. In the absence of evidence that would support an inference contrary to the trial court's judgment, this Court has no basis for second-guessing the trial court's exercise of its discretion. Thus, the mere assertion, without supporting evidence, that the necessary documents are located outside Alabama offers no basis for granting the petitions.
Regarding the inconvenience of the witnesses, this Court has held that "a defendant cannot assert the inconvenience of its witnesses without making a detailed statement specifying the key witnesses and providing general statements of the subject matter of their testimony." Ex parte Preston Hood Chevrolet, 638 So. 2d  at 845. In their motion to dismiss, the petitioners stated:
(Emphasis in original.)
GNC, in its "Submission of Additional Authority in Support of Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens,"[3] stated, in relevant part:
(Emphasis in original.) During the May 9, 2002, hearing, counsel for GNC stated:
Regarding the inconvenience-of-the-witnesses argument, Gregory argues in his brief to this Court:
In the "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Forum Non Conveniens," Gregory states:
During the May 9, 2002, hearing, Gregory's counsel stated:
In weighing the inconvenience of the witnesses, this Court stated in BE &amp; K, Inc. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 688 So. 2d 246, 250 (Ala.1997):
Under the facts of this case, this Court is unable to conclude that the inconvenience posed to the petitioners' witnesses is so great that the convenience of the witnesses requires that this action be dismissed.
The petitioners next argue that the interests of justice require a dismissal of this case. First, they argue that because the parties have agreed that Virginia law will be applied in this case, a Virginia court would be a more appropriate forum. Second, they argue that Gregory abused the venue-selection process when he moved to Butler County after the death of his wife and subsequently filed an action against them in that forum. Third, they argue that they would be unable to subpoena potential witnesses to testify in Butler County.
First, although some aspects of Virginia law may govern this case, the mere fact that the law of a foreign state is controlling does not warrant a dismissal. See Ex parte Preston Hood Chevrolet, 638 So. 2d  at 845 (reaffirming the holding in Ex parte Allied-Signal, Inc., 561 So. 2d 1062, 1064-65 (Ala.1990), that the "mere fact that another state's law is controlling does not warrant a dismissal"). Second, we cannot agree with the petitioners' contention that Gregory was attempting to abuse the venue-selection process when he moved to Butler County; there was no evidence before the trial court supporting this contention. The evidence shows that after the death of his wife, Gregory moved his family back to Greenville, Alabama, where he and his wife had been reared. Without more, we cannot conclude that this behavior was an abuse of the venue-selection process. Finally, regarding the unavailability of subpoenas for witnesses outside Alabama, Rule 28, Ala.R.Civ.P., and Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-411 (Michie 2000), could combine to provide for discovery in Virginia. See generally America Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Company, 261 Va. 350, 542 S.E.2d 377 (2001)("Under the [Uniform Foreign Depositions Act] reciprocity is required, and the `privilege extended to persons in other states by § 8.01-411 shall only apply to those states which extended the same privilege to persons in this Commonwealth.'"). Regarding the availability of discovery, counsel for GNC, during the May 9, 2002, hearing, referencing the ability to accomplish discovery, stated: "And obviously while we can go [to Virginia] and depose and we can take videotapes[,] we can do discovery up there but when the rubber meets the road we have to come down here and try this case...." Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-411, the parties could compel the attendance at deposition of any Virginia witness who might decline to attend voluntarily the same as they would do were the witness sought for a trial appearance in Virginia. Thus, the petitioners have not shown that the interests of justice mandate a dismissal of this case.
As this Court stated in Ex parte Preston Hood Chevrolet, 638 So. 2d  at 846, "[a]ll of the factors must be positively found in order to justify dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens." (Emphasis added.) Given the circumstances of this case, we are unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the petitioners' motion to dismiss under Ala.Code *486 1975, § 6-5-430. The petitions for the writ of mandamus are therefore denied.
PETITIONS DENIED.
MOORE, C.J., and HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, and WOODALL, JJ., concur.
STUART, J., dissents.
[1]  The three petitions were consolidated on August 16, 2002, for this Court's review.
[2]  Ephedra is defined as "1. Any of various gymnospermous, mostly shrubby plants of the genus Ephedra, some of which are used as a source of ephedrine. 2. A stimulant, often sold as pills or tablets, derived from a plant of this genus." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Co.2000).
[3]  GNC's "Submission of Additional Authority" was subsequently adopted by the other petitioners.