Title: Ex Parte DM White Const. Co., Inc.
Citation: 806 So. 2d 370
Docket Number: 1000199
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: June 15, 2001

806 So. 2d 370 (2001)
Ex parte D.M. WHITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
(Re Stinnett Concrete Company, Inc. v. D.M. White Construction Company, Inc.)
1000199.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 15, 2001.
*371 David B. Block and Walter A. Dodgen of Balch &amp; Bingham, L.L.P., Huntsville, for petitioner.
C. Wayne Morris, Huntsville, for respondent.
STUART, Justice.
D.M. White Construction Company, Inc. ("D.M.White"), is a defendant in an action pending in the Madison Circuit Court. It petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to enforce an "outbound" forum-selection clause in its contract with the plaintiff Stinnett Concrete Company, Inc. ("Stinnett"), by granting D.M. White's motion for summary judgment.
In August 1997, Stinnett, through its owner, Edgar Stinnett, contracted to become a subcontractor to perform specified concrete work for D.M. White's construction projectthe Carmike Cinemas 10-plex theater in Huntsville. The contract contained the following clause:
The contract further provided: "This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Tennessee."
In November 1998, Stinnett sued D.M. White, alleging fraud, negligence, breach of contract, and failure to timely pay a subcontractor, and seeking payment for work and labor performed. In December 1998, D.M. White moved for a summary *372 judgment, alleging improper venue and requesting that the circuit court enforce the "outbound" forum-selection clause. In July 2000, the circuit court conducted a hearing on D.M. White's motion and denied it, without issuing a written explanation. D.M. White petitioned the Court of Civil Appeals for a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to vacate its order denying the summary-judgment motion and to enforce the "outbound" forum-selection clause by granting the summary-judgment motion. The Court of Civil Appeals, on October 17, 2000, denied the mandamus petition. Ex parte D.M. White Constr. Co. (No. 2991177), ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Civ.App. 2000) (table). D.M. White then petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus, seeking the same relief. See Rule 21, Ala. R.App.P.[1]
Ex parte CTB, Inc., 782 So. 2d 188, 190 (Ala.2000). In Ex parte CTB, this Court established that a petition for a writ of mandamus is the proper vehicle for obtaining review of an order denying enforcement of an "outbound" forum-selection clause when it is presented in a motion to dismiss. Indeed, an attempt to seek enforcement of the outbound forum-selection clause is properly presented in a motion to dismiss without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), Ala.R.Civ.P., for contractually improper venue. Additionally, we note that a party may submit evidentiary matters to support a motion to dismiss that attacks venue. Williams v. Skysite Communications Corp., 781 So. 2d 241 (Ala.Civ. App.2000), quoting Crowe v. City of Athens, 733 So. 2d 447, 449 (Ala.Civ.App.1999).
D.M. White raised the forum-selection clause in a motion for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment is an appropriate means of seeking an adjudication on the merits. Bean v. Craig, 557 So. 2d 1249 (Ala.1990). D.M. White, however, is not seeking an adjudication on the merits; therefore, summary judgmentwhich would operate much as a dismissal with prejudicewould not be appropriate. However, in light of the facts of this particular case and recognizing that "[t]he substance of a motion and not its style determines what kind of motion it is," Evans v. Waddell, 689 So. 2d 23, 26 (Ala. 1997), we will treat D.M. White's motion as a motion to dismiss without prejudice and address the merits of this petition. Ex parte CTB, Inc.
An outbound forum-selection clause is enforceable unless the challenging party can establish that enforcement of the clause would be unfair on the basis that the contract "`[w]as affected by fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power or ... enforcement would be unreasonable on the basis that the [selected] forum would be seriously inconvenient.'" The burden on the challenging party is difficult to meet. Ex parte CTB, supra. See also Professional Ins. Corp. v. Sutherland, 700 So. 2d 347, 351 (Ala.1997). On appeal, the review of a trial court's ruling on the question of enforcing a forum-selection clause is for an abuse of discretion. O'Brien Eng'g Co. v. Continental *373 Machs., Inc., 738 So. 2d 844 (Ala. 1999).
When D.M. White moved for a summary judgmentbasing its motion on the grounds that the outbound forum-selection clause should be enforced and the cause "dismissed"Stinnett responded with an affidavit stating:
The averments in Stinnett's affidavit do not establish that enforcement of the outbound forum-selection clause would be unfair on the basis that the contract "was affected by fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power" or would be unreasonable on the basis that the selected forum would be seriously inconvenient. Stinnett does not contend that the contract was affected by fraud or undue influence. While Stinnett states that D.M. White is a large company, as compared to Stinnett, that Stinnett was not allowed to negotiate any of the terms of the contract, and that the contract had to be accepted as written, these statements alone do not establish "overweening bargaining power."
Additionally, Stinnett offered only conclusory statements to support his contention that enforcing the clause would be unreasonable. He offers no evidence to support these statements. The chosen foruma Tennessee state court in Chattanoogais not, per se, unreasonable or seriously inconvenient. Tennessee is the home state of D.M. White; evidence indicated that four to six witnesses lived in Chattanooga; and the bulk of the documents relevant to the lawsuit were located in Tennessee. Additionally, Stinnett did not establish that the forum would be seriously inconvenient. Indeed, distance of travel does not establish that a forum is unreasonable. Ex parte Northern Capital *374 Res. Corp., 751 So. 2d 12 (Ala.1999)(enforcing outbound forum-selection clause requiring that litigation be conducted in Missouri); O'Brien Eng'g Co. v. Continental Machs., Inc., supra (enforcing outbound forum-selection clause requiring that litigation be conducted in Minnesota); Moseley v. Electronic Realty Assocs., 730 So. 2d 227 (Ala.Civ.App.1998)(enforcing outbound forum-selection clause requiring that litigation be conducted in Kansas); and Professional Ins. Corp., et.al. v. Sutherland, 700 So. 2d 347 (Ala.1997)(enforcing outbound forum-selection clause requiring that litigation be conducted in Florida).
Stinnett did not present substantial evidence establishing that the outbound forum-selection clause was either unfair or unreasonable. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by denying D.M. White's motion to enforce the outbound forum-selection clause. The trial court is directed to dismiss this cause without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), Ala. R.Civ.P.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, HARWOOD, and WOODALL, JJ., concur.
[1]  We note that Rule 5, Ala.R.App.P., did not permit D.M. White to seek an interlocutory appeal of the order denying the summary-judgment motion, because original jurisdiction of an appeal from Stinnett's action would be in the Court of Civil Appeals.