Title: Ex parte Brian J. Kane and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Eva Marie Odom v. Brian J. Kane and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1060528
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: February 15, 2008

REL:2/15/2008
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
OCTOBER TERM, 2007-2008
____________________
1060528
____________________
Ex parte Brian J. Kane and State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: Eva Marie Odom
v.
Brian J. Kane and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company)
(Clay Circuit Court, CV-06-30)
SMITH, Justice.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State
Farm") and Brian J. Kane (collectively "the petitioners"), the
defendants in a personal-injury action pending in the Clay
1060528
2
Circuit Court, petition this Court for a writ of mandamus
directing the trial court to transfer the action to the Lee
Circuit Court.  We grant the petition and issue the writ.
Facts and Procedural History
This action results from an automobile accident that
occurred in Lee County in December 2005.  Eva Marie Odom was
a passenger in an automobile driven by Kane.  Kane's
automobile struck another automobile driven by Fupo Lee, in
which Lai Lee was a passenger.  Two officers with the Auburn
Police 
Department, 
Jason 
Jenkins 
and 
Willie 
Brown,
investigated the accident.
Odom subsequently sued Kane and his insurer, State Farm,
in the Clay Circuit Court, alleging that she had suffered
injuries as a result of the accident.  She sought damages for
negligence and "gross negligence and/or wantonness," as well
as underinsured-motorist benefits under Kane's automobile
insurance policy issued by State Farm. 
The petitioners each filed a motion to transfer the
action to Lee County pursuant to, among other grounds, the
doctrine of forum non conveniens.  See Ala. Code 1975, § 6-3-
21.1.  Kane's motion included several evidentiary exhibits and
1060528
In addition to filing its own motion, State Farm joined
1
and adopted Kane's motion for a change of venue.
3
was later supplemented with an additional exhibit.   Odom
1
filed no response to the motions for a change of venue.  
The trial court denied the motions, and the petitioners
timely filed this petition for the writ of mandamus.
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
1060528
4
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).
Discussion
The petitioners contend that they have a clear legal
right under Ala. Code 1975, § 6-3-21.1, to have the case
transferred to Lee County.  Section 6-3-21.1(a), which
provides when an action may be transferred under the doctrine
of forum non conveniens, states:
"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. ..."
"A defendant moving for a transfer under § 6-3-21.1 has
the initial burden of showing that the transfer is justified,
based on the convenience of the parties and witnesses or based
on the interest of justice."  National Sec. Ins. Co., 727 So.
2d at 789.
In their motions for a change of venue, the petitioners
argued that both the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and the interest of justice required a transfer of the case to
1060528
5
Lee County.  Kane submitted an affidavit in which he testified
that the accident occurred in Lee County, that he was a
resident of Lee County, that the Lee Circuit Court is closer
to his residence than is the Clay Circuit Court, that if he
were called to testify, the Lee Circuit Court would be
substantially more convenient, and that traveling to the Clay
Circuit Court for the trial of the action would be a
significant burden on him.
The petitioners also submitted affidavits of Fupo Lee and
Lai Lee, the occupants of the other vehicle; two eyewitnesses
to the accident, Michael Dillehay and James J. Motley; and one
of the investigating officers, Jason Jenkins, who all
testified that they lived in Lee County, that if they were
called 
to 
testify, 
the 
Lee 
Circuit 
Court 
would 
be
substantially more convenient to them, and that traveling to
the Clay Circuit Court for the trial would be a significant
burden to them.  Additionally, Kane submitted evidence to the
trial court indicating that Fupo Lee and Lai Lee had sued the
petitioners in the Lee Circuit Court, seeking damages for
injuries allegedly resulting from the accident.  
1060528
6
Odom submitted nothing in opposition to the motions for
a change in venue.  The complaint reveals that Odom resides in
Clay County and that State Farm conducts business there.  In
response to the mandamus petition, Odom filed an affidavit
with this Court in which she testifies that Lee County would
be an inconvenient forum for her to travel to and that, to the
best of her "knowledge and belief," Kane now lives in North
Carolina.  However, this affidavit, executed after Kane's
reply brief was filed in this case, was not presented to the
trial court.  We thus do not consider it.  See Pike
Fabrication, supra, and Verbena United Methodist Church, 953
So. 2d at 399 (refusing to consider an affidavit submitted in
opposition to a mandamus petition because the affidavit was
not before the trial court when it rendered the decision under
review).
"The purpose of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is
to 'prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and also to
protect 
witnesses, 
litigants, 
and 
the 
public 
against
unnecessary expense and inconvenience.'"  Ex parte Perfection
Siding, Inc., 882 So. 2d 307, 312 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Ex
parte New England Mut. Life Ins. Co., 663 So. 2d 952, 956
1060528
7
(Ala. 1995)).  We note that "litigation should be handled in
the forum where the injury occurred" and that "one of the
fundamental purposes of the doctrine of forum non conveniens
is to spare witnesses the unnecessary inconvenience associated
with testifying in a distant forum."  Ex parte Sawyer, 892 So.
2d 898, 904 (Ala. 2004).  Finally, "the 'interest of justice'
require[s] 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."  National Sec. Ins. Co.,
727 So. 2d at 790.  
"The burden of proof under this doctrine is on the
defendant to prove to the satisfaction of the trial
court that the defendant's inconvenience and expense
of defending the action in the venue selected by the
plaintiff are such that the plaintiff's right to
choose the forum is overcome. Stated differently,
the transferee forum must be significantly more
convenient than the forum in which the action is
filed by the plaintiff, to justify transfer."
New England Mut. Life Ins. Co., 663 So. 2d at 956.  
In New England Mutual Life Insurance Co., the defendants
petitioned this Court contending that the action pending in
Barbour County was due to be transferred to Montgomery County
on the basis of forum non conveniens.  Specifically, although
the plaintiff resided in Barbour County, none of the events
1060528
8
giving rise to the action took place there; the alleged
wrongful act involved Montgomery County entities; and all the
witnesses, except the plaintiff, resided in Montgomery County.
"Most significantly," we noted, several related actions
involving the same alleged wrongful act were pending in
Montgomery County and some, if not all, of the witnesses in
those cases would testify in the case the defendants sought to
have transferred: "All of these witnesses would be forced to
travel from Montgomery County to Barbour County for a trial in
the plaintiff's case, which this Court finds to be both
burdensome and unnecessarily expensive."  663 So. 2d at 956.
We thus held that the trial court exceeded its discretion in
denying the motion to transfer.
In the instant case, all the witnesses and parties
identified so far, except the plaintiff, reside in Lee County;
all 
testified 
that 
the 
Lee 
Circuit 
Court 
would 
be
substantially more convenient for them than the Clay Circuit
Court; and all testified that traveling to the Clay Circuit
Court would be a significant burden.  The alleged acts,
omissions, and injuries in this case occurred in Lee County,
and there is a related action involving the same incident and
1060528
9
the same witnesses pending there.  The only connection with
this case and Clay County, however, is that Odom resides there
and that State Farm does business there.  We conclude that Lee
County is a "significantly more convenient" forum than is Clay
County and that both the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and the interest of justice require a transfer of
this action to Lee County.  Sawyer, supra, National Sec. Ins.
Co., supra, New England Mut. Life Ins. Co., supra.
Conclusion
The trial court is directed to vacate its order denying
the motion to transfer and to transfer the action to the Lee
Circuit Court.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Cobb, C.J., and See, Woodall, and Parker, JJ., concur.