Title: Ex parte Locklear Chrysler Jeep Dodge, LLC, and Locklear Automotive Group, Inc.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1160374
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: September 29, 2017

Rel:09/29/2017
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, 2017
____________________
1160372
____________________
Ex parte Locklear Chrysler Jeep Dodge, LLC, and  Locklear
Automotive Group, Inc.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: Rhonda Cook
v.
Locklear Chrysler Jeep Dodge, LLC, and  Locklear Automotive,
Inc.)
(Bibb Circuit Court, CV-16-900049)
____________________
1160373
____________________
Ex parte Locklear Chrysler Jeep Dodge, LLC, and  Locklear
Automotive Group, Inc.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: James McKinney
v.
Locklear Chrysler Jeep Dodge, LLC, and  Locklear Automotive
Group, Inc.)
(Bibb Circuit Court, CV-16-900053)
____________________
1160374
____________________
Ex parte Locklear Chrysler Jeep Dodge, LLC, and  Locklear
Automotive Group, Inc.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: James Daniel Parker
v.
Locklear Chrysler Jeep Dodge, LLC, and  Locklear Automotive
Group, Inc.)
(Bibb Circuit Court, CV-16-900054)
BOLIN, Justice.
Locklear 
Chrysler 
Jeep 
Dodge, 
LLC, 
and 
Locklear
Automotive Group, Inc. (hereinafter referred to collectively
as "Locklear"), seek a writ of mandamus ordering the Bibb
2
1160372, 1160373, 1160374
Circuit Court to vacate certain discovery orders in actions
filed against Locklear by Rhonda Cook, James McKinney, and
James Daniel Parker (hereinafter referred to  collectively as
"the purchasers"), who allege that they were victims of
identity theft by a Locklear employee.  
Facts and Procedural History
In order to explore the possibility of financing the
purchase of an automobile from Locklear, the purchasers each
completed a credit application.  The credit applications
contained personal information, including Social Security
numbers, birth dates, mother's maiden names, income, etc.  In
connection with the purchase, each purchaser signed an
arbitration agreement titled "Binding Pre-Dispute Arbitration
Agreement" ("the arbitration agreement"); its operative
language is as follows:
"In 
connection 
with 
the 
undersigned's
acquisition or attempted acquisition of the below
described vehicle, by lease, rental, purchase or
otherwise, the undersigned and the dealer whose name
appears below, stipulate and agree, in connection
with the resolution of any dispute arising out of,
or relating to, resulting from or concerning any
contracts or agreements, or agreements or contracts
to be entered into by the parties, all alleged
representations, promises and covenants, issues
concerning compliance with any state or federal law
or regulation, and all relationships resulting
3
1160372, 1160373, 1160374
therefrom, as follows: That the vehicle, services,
and products (hereinafter 'products') involved in
the 
acquisition 
or 
attempted 
acquisition 
are
regulated by the laws of the United States of
America; and/or, that the contract(s) and agreements
entered into by the parties concerning said products
evidence transactions and business enterprises
substantially involving and affecting interstate
commerce sufficiently to invoke the application of
the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
The undersigned agree that all disputes not barred
by applicable statutes of limitations, resulting
from, arising out of, relating to or concerning the
transaction entered into or sought to be entered
into (including but not limited to: any matters
taking place either before or after the parties
entered into this agreement, including any prior
agreements or negotiations between the parties; the
terms of this agreement and all clauses herein
contained, their breadth and scope, and any term of
any agreement contemporaneously entered into by the
parties; the past, present and future condition of
any products at issue; the conformity of the
products 
to 
any 
contract 
description; 
the
representations, promises, undertakings, warranties
or covenants made by the dealer, its agents,
servants, employees, successors and assigns, or
otherwise dealing with the products; any lease, sale
or rental terms or the terms of credit and/or
financing in connection therewith; or compliance
with any state or federal laws; any terms or
provisions of any insurance sought to be purchased
or purchased simultaneously herewith; any terms or
provisions of any extended service to be purchased
or purchased herewith) shall be submitted to BINDING
ARBITRATION, pursuant to the provisions of 9 U.S.C.
§ 1, et seq. and according to the Commercial Dispute
Resolution procedures and/or Consumer Protocol
(depending on the amount in controversy) of the
American Arbitration Association (the AAA) then
existing in the county where the transaction was
entered into or sought to be entered into, except as
4
1160372, 1160373, 1160374
follows: (a) In all disputes in which the matter in
controversy (including compensatory and punitive
damages, fees and costs) is more than $10,000 but
less than $75,000.00, one arbitrator shall be
selected in accordance with the AAA's Consumer
Protocol. In all disputes in which the matter in
controversy (including compensatory and punitive
damages and fees and costs) is $75,000.00 or more,
the parties to this agreement shall select an
arbitrator under the AAA's Commercial Rules and
shall select one arbitrator from a list of at least
5 suitable arbitrators supplied by the AAA in
accordance with and utilizing the AAA strike method.
(b) An arbitrator so selected shall be empowered to
enter an award of such damages, fees and costs, and
grant such other relief, as is allowed by law. The
arbitrator has no authority or jurisdiction to enter
any 
award 
that 
is 
not 
in 
conformance 
with
controlling law. Any party to this agreement who
fails or refuses to arbitrate in accordance with the
terms of this agreement may, in addition to any
other relief awarded, be taxed by the arbitrator
with the costs, including reasonable attorney's
fees, of any other party who had to resort to
judicial or other relief in compelling arbitration.
In the event the dealer and the undersigned
customer(s) have entered into more than one
arbitration agreement concerning any of the matters
identified herein, the undersigned customers and the
dealer agree that the terms of this arbitration
agreement shall control disputes between and among
them. Any provision in this Agreement found to be in
conflict with any procedure promulgated by the AAA
which shall affect its administration of disputes
hereunder, shall be considered severed herefrom.
With respect to the process of arbitration under the
AAA commercial Rules or Consumer Protocol, the
undersigned customer(s) and the dealer expressly
recognize that the rules and protocol and the terms
of this agreement adequately protect their abilities
to fully and reasonably pursue their respective
statutory and other legal rights. If for any reason
5
1160372, 1160373, 1160374
the AAA fails or refuses to administer the
arbitration of any dispute brought by any party to
this agreement, the parties agree that all disputes
will then be submitted to binding arbitration before
the Better Business Bureau (the BBB) serving the
community where the Dealer conducts business, under
the BBB binding arbitration rules. ... This
agreement 
shall 
survive 
any 
termination,
cancellation, fulfillment, or non-fulfillment of any
other contract, covenant or agreement related to the
products acquired or sought to be acquired from the 
Dealer, including, but not limited to cancellation
due to lack of acceptable financing or funding of
any retail installment contract or lease. Further
information about arbitration can be obtained
directly from the AAA or from a review of AAA's
Commercial 
Dispute 
Resolution 
Procedures 
and
Consumer 
Protocol, 
and/or 
the 
BBB's 
Binding
Arbitration Rules, copies of which are available
without charge for review from the AAA and the BBB.
THE 
UNDERSIGNED 
HAVE 
AGREED 
TO 
WAIVE 
THE
UNDERSIGNED(S)' RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JUDGE OR JURY IN
ALL DISPUTES OVER $10,000.00 AND THAT ARBITRATION
SHALL BE IN LIEU OF ANY CIVIL LITIGATION IN ANY
COURT AND IN LIEU OF ANY TRIAL BY JUDGE OR JURY FOR
ALL CLAIMS OVER $10,000.00. THE TERMS OF THIS
AGREEMENT AFFECT LEGAL RIGHTS. IF YOU DO NOT
UNDERSTAND ANY PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT OR THE
COSTS, ADVANTAGES OR DISADVANTAGES OF ARBITRATION,
SEEK INDEPENDENT ADVICE AND/OR REVIEW THE WRITTEN
CONSUMER 
AND/OR 
COMMERCIAL 
DISPUTE 
RESOLUTION
PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS AND/OR CONTACT THE AAA OR
BBB BEFORE SIGNING. BY SIGNING YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
YOU HAVE READ, UNDERSTAND AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY
EACH OF THE PROVISIONS, COVENANTS, STIPULATIONS AND
AGREEMENTS SET FORTH AND REFERENCED HEREINABOVE. 
"DESCRIPTION 
OF 
PRODUCTS/SERVICES: 
________________"
(Capitalization and emphasis in original.)
6
1160372, 1160373, 1160374
In the blank line following the words "DESCRIPTION OF
PRODUCTS/SERVICES" typically was printed the year and 
model of
the vehicle to be purchased as well as the vehicle-
identification number of that vehicle.  Below that were lines
for the date to be filled in and lines for signatures of the
customer and a dealer representative.  Each of the purchasers
signed the arbitration agreement in December 2015.
In July and August 2016, each of the purchasers sued
Locklear, as well as other defendants.  Each purchaser alleged
that he or she was the victim of identity theft by an employee
of Locklear's who used the personal information from the
purchaser's credit application to purchase thousands of
dollars in cellular-telephone services.  They asserted claims
of negligence, wantonness, invasion of privacy, conversion,
fraud, tort of outrage, civil conspiracy, violations of
Alabama's Consumer Identity Protection Act, and breach of
fiduciary duty.  Shortly after filing their lawsuits, the
purchasers 
sought 
general 
discovery, 
including
interrogatories, requests for production of documents,
requests for admissions, and notices of deposition.  The
7
1160372, 1160373, 1160374
general discovery requests regarded matters related to the
purchasers' substantive claims.
In response to the three actions, Locklear filed a motion
in each action seeking an order compelling arbitration staying
the action.  The trial court held a hearing on the motions,
but did not rule on them.
Subsequently, each of the purchasers filed a motion to
compel Locklear's responses to their discovery requests and to
deem admitted their requests for admissions.   The trial court
granted the purchasers' motions.  Locklear then filed three
petitions for mandamus review, which this Court consolidated
for the purpose of writing one opinion.  While the mandamus
petitions were pending, the trial court granted Locklear's
motions to stay discovery.  
Standard of Review
"Mandamus is 
an 
extraordinary remedy and 
will be
granted only where there is '(1) a clear legal right
in the petitioner 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) properly invoked
jurisdiction of the court.' Ex parte Alfab, Inc.,
586 So. 2d 889, 891 (Ala. 1991).  This Court will
not issue the writ of mandamus where the petitioner
has '"full and adequate relief"' by appeal. State v.
Cobb, 288 Ala. 675, 678, 264 So. 2d 523, 526 (1972)
8
1160372, 1160373, 1160374
(quoting State v. Williams, 69 Ala. 311, 316
(1881)). 
"Discovery matters are within the trial court's
sound discretion, and this Court will not reverse a
trial court's ruling on a discovery issue unless the
trial court has clearly exceeded its discretion. 
Home Ins. Co. v. Rice, 585 So. 2d 859, 862 (Ala.
1991). Accordingly, mandamus will issue to reverse
a trial court's ruling on a discovery issue only (1)
where there is a showing that the trial court
clearly exceeded its discretion, and (2) where the
aggrieved party does not have an adequate remedy by
ordinary appeal. The petitioner has an affirmative
burden to prove the existence of each of these
conditions."
Ex parte Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 872 So. 2d 810, 813 (Ala.
2003). 
Discussion
Locklear argues that, although discovery may be allowed 
while a motion to compel arbitration is pending, that
discovery is limited to whether the parties to the arbitration
agreement must arbitrate their claims.  Locklear argues that 
the trial court exceeded its discretion in allowing general
discovery regarding the merits of the purchasers' claims. 
Locklear argues that permitting general discovery to proceed
in a case that may be subject to arbitration could frustrate
one of the purposes underlying arbitration, namely, the
inexpensive and expedient resolution of disputes.  
9
1160372, 1160373, 1160374
Locklear cites Ex parte Kenworth of Birmingham, Inc., 789
So. 2d 227 (Ala. 2000), in support of its position.  In
Kenworth, the plaintiffs sued Kenworth and its salesman,
asserting claims arising out of the purchase of a truck.  They
alleged that the salesman had represented that the truck was
new, when, in fact, the truck had been used and damaged, had
been repaired, had had parts replaced, and had been repainted
to appear new.  Kenworth and the salesman answered the
complaint, raising several affirmative defenses and asserting
that the plaintiffs' claims were subject to arbitration.  They
moved to stay the proceedings and to compel arbitration,
attaching a copy of a "Buyer's Order" that contained an
arbitration provision.  In response to the motion to compel,
the plaintiffs asserted that they did not recall an
arbitration provision in the paperwork underlying the sale of
the truck and that the signature on the paperwork was not
theirs. 
On the day of the hearing on the motion to stay and to
compel arbitration, Kenworth and the salesman moved in open
court to continue the hearing and requested leave to conduct
discovery. The trial court rescheduled the hearing on the
10
1160372, 1160373, 1160374
motion to compel arbitration and ordered that discovery would
not be stayed pending the hearing, nor would discovery be
limited to the issue of the genuineness of the signature on
the buyer's order containing the arbitration provision.
Both sides in Kenworth filed notices of depositions. A
week before the scheduled depositions, Kenworth and the
salesman moved for what they called a "reconsideration" and to
stay discovery, arguing that they had made a prima facie
showing that the arbitration provision was enforceable. The
trial court denied that motion and further stated that "'there
is no "prima facie showing that the arbitration agreement is
enforceable."'"   789 So. 2d at 229.  The court then reset the
hearing on the motion to compel arbitration.  Kenworth and the
salesman petitioned this Court for the writ of mandamus before
the hearing could be held.  They argued that the trial court
exceeded its discretion by allowing unrestricted discovery
before a resolution of the question whether the plaintiffs
must arbitrate their claims.  This Court agreed, holding that,
although the trial court did not err in allowing the parties
to conduct discovery, it did err in failing to restrict that
11
1160372, 1160373, 1160374
discovery to the question whether the plaintiffs had agreed to
arbitrate their dispute with Kenworth and the salesman. 
We note that, in the instant case, this Court is not
reviewing a trial court's order denying a motion to compel
arbitration; the trial court has not yet ruled on Locklear's
motion to compel.  It is the trial court's general discovery
orders that are being challenged.  Here, as in Kenworth, the
trial court exceeded its discretion by allowing general
discovery before the resolution of the issue whether the
purchasers must arbitrate their claims.  In Ex parte Jim Burke
Automotive, Inc., 776 So. 2d 118 (Ala. 2000), this Court
explained that, although it was not error for the trial court
to allow the parties to conduct discovery prior to
arbitration, it was error not to limit the discovery to the
question whether the plaintiff agreed to arbitrate his claims
and that such limited discovery did not constitute a waiver of
the right to arbitrate.  Here, the purchasers have not
requested discovery on an issue related to the arbitration
agreement; instead, they sought general discovery regarding
the merits of their claims.  In granting  the purchasers'
requests for general discovery before the resolution of
12
1160372, 1160373, 1160374
Locklear's arbitration motions, the trial court exceeded its
discretion.  Furthermore, because it would be unfair to
require Locklear conduct merit-based discovery prior to
deciding the arbitration issue, and because Locklear could not
be afforded the relief it seeks after that discovery has been
conducted, Locklear does not have an adequate remedy by
ordinary appeal.  Accordingly, we grant the petitions and
issue the writs, directing the trial court to vacate its
orders requiring Locklear to respond to the purchasers'
discovery requests, including the requests for admissions and
to sit for depositions.
1160372 -- PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
1160373 -- PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
1160374 -- PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Stuart, C.J., and Parker, Murdock, Shaw, Main, Wise,
Bryan, and Sellers, JJ., concur.
13