Title: Pruitt v. AAA Interstate Transportation, LLC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1200666
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: January 21, 2022

REL: January 21, 2022
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, 2021-2022
____________________
1200666
____________________
Terry Pruitt and Jane Pruitt
v.
AAA Interstate Transportation, LLC
Appeal from Walker Circuit Court
(CV-19-900220)
MITCHELL, Justice.
After sustaining injuries in a one-vehicle accident, Terry and Jane
Pruitt filed a complaint against several defendants, including AAA
Interstate Transportation, LLC ("AAA"), in the Walker Circuit Court.  The
1200666
court dismissed their claims against AAA for lack of personal jurisdiction,
and it certified that dismissal as a final judgment under Rule 54(b), Ala.
R. Civ. P.  The Pruitts appealed.  Because the circuit court did not have
either general or specific personal jurisdiction over AAA, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History1
AAA is a transportation-logistics company organized as a limited-
liability company under the laws of Colorado, with its principal place of
business in Denver.  Although AAA operates nationwide, it does not own
or operate any business facilities in Alabama.  In the spring of 2018, AAA
contracted with Michels Machinery Co., Inc. ("Michels"), to transport a
crane truck from Yukon, Oklahoma, to Michels's facility in Las Vegas,
Nevada.  AAA never performed any maintenance on the crane truck,
never had any property interest in it, and had no further involvement
with it after delivering it to Michels.
1For purposes of this appeal, we take as true the undisputed
allegations of the Pruitts' operative complaint and the undisputed facts
set forth in both sides' evidentiary materials, resolving conflicts and
ambiguities in the Pruitts' favor to the greatest reasonable extent.  See Ex
parte Covington Pike Dodge, Inc., 904 So. 2d 226, 229-30 (Ala. 2004). 
2
1200666
Later, Michels sold the crane truck to Jimmy's Construction &
Maintenance, Inc. ("Jimmy's"), an Alabama corporation headquartered in
Walker County.  In August 2018, Jimmy's hired Terry Pruitt to bring the
crane truck from Nevada to Walker County.  Accompanied by his wife
Jane, Terry flew to Las Vegas, received the crane truck from Michels, and
began driving it to Alabama.  In Texas, one of the tires on the crane truck
failed, causing it to careen off the road and roll over several times.  The
Pruitts suffered severe and life-threatening injuries that required
extensive treatment.
The Pruitts filed a complaint in the circuit court, initially naming
Jimmy's, Michels, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company as defendants.  Eventually, the Pruitts learned of AAA's prior
involvement in transporting the crane truck.  They joined AAA as a
defendant in their second amended complaint, the operative complaint for
our purposes, which was served on AAA by certified mail at its office in
Las Vegas.  The second amended complaint pleads claims against AAA for
negligent or wanton maintenance or inspection of the crane truck and,
relatedly, for negligent or wanton hiring, training, or supervision of its
3
1200666
employees.  In attempting to establish personal jurisdiction, the second
amended complaint alleges that AAA "conducts business either personally
or by agent in Walker County, Alabama."
AAA filed an answer to the second amended complaint, pleading lack
of personal jurisdiction.  Shortly thereafter, it filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction.  See Rule 12(b)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P.  In support,
AAA submitted an affidavit by its safety director, Fabian Wisner,
describing AAA's lack of direct business connections to Alabama and its
limited involvement with the crane truck in transporting it to Nevada for
Michels.  In addition to the undisputed facts stated in the first paragraph
of this section, Wisner's affidavit states that AAA "does not have any
employees in Alabama," "does not direct any marketing activities to the
state of Alabama," and does "not advertise for driver positions in that
state."
In opposition to the motion, the Pruitts pointed to facts that they
argued cast doubt on the accuracy of Wisner's affidavit.  Regarding the
extent of AAA's business contacts with Alabama, the Pruitts pointed to:
(1) statements on AAA's website emphasizing the nationwide scope of its
4
1200666
vehicle-transportation services and driver base;2 (2) a job-application form
on AAA's website, which is accessible from Alabama and can be completed
by Alabama applicants; and (3) evidence that, in August 2019, a AAA
driver was cited for carrier violations while operating a vehicle with an
Alabama license plate in California.  The Pruitts also noted that
documents recording AAA's transaction with Michels suggest that AAA's
driver inspected the crane truck in Oklahoma and was responsible for
checking its fluid levels at fuel stops.  Based on these facts, the Pruitts
2The Pruitts put particular stress on the following three statements
(given here with the Pruitts' emphases):
"AAA Interstate Transportation, LLC specializes in the drive-
away transportation of commercial and utility vehicles across
the United States.  With Offices in strategic locations, and
drivers all across the country, we can handle any move.  Our
people are some of the most experienced in the industry, and
are prepared to do whatever it takes to get the job done."
——————————
"Our 
expanded 
driver 
base 
allows 
AAA 
Interstate
Transportation to service customers nationwide."
——————————
"Our drive-away transportation service ('hiker service') can
pick-up and deliver your bucket, water, digger derrick, boom
truck, crane, or any other utility or commercial vehicle
nationwide."
5
1200666
argued that the court should deny AAA's motion to dismiss or, at least,
allow the Pruitts to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
When they filed their opposition, the Pruitts had already served a
request for admissions on AAA.  AAA responded to the request and
admitted, in substance, that the relevant statements from its website are
authentic, that it conducts its vehicle-transportation business nationwide,
that it has been hired for transportation jobs by corporate customers in
Alabama, and that one of its drivers was operating the Alabama-plated
vehicle in California in August 2019.  AAA declined to admit that it
markets its services to Alabama on its website, but it admitted that its
website can be accessed from any location with an Internet connection. 
AAA denied that it was aware when it transported the crane truck that
Michels conducts business in Alabama, and it denied having sufficient
information to state whether Michels does in fact conduct business in
Alabama.  AAA also submitted a second affidavit by Wisner, attesting that
AAA had transported the Alabama-plated vehicle for a customer and that
none of the more than 15 jobs AAA had completed for Michels involved an
Alabama entity or the transportation of a vehicle to or from Alabama.
6
1200666
On February 26, 2021, the circuit court granted AAA's motion and
dismissed the Pruitts' claims against AAA for lack of personal jurisdiction. 
In its order, the court certified the dismissal as a final judgment under
Rule 54(b), finding that there was "no just reason for delay."  The Pruitts
filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which was denied.
The Pruitts filed a timely notice of appeal to the Court of Civil
Appeals.  That court, however, concluded that it lacked appellate
jurisdiction and transferred the appeal to this Court, evidently on the
ground 
that 
the 
amount 
involved 
exceeds 
$50,000.3 
 
See
§§ 12-1-4, 12-2-7(1), 12-3-10, Ala. Code 1975.
3The second amended complaint does not specifically claim or allege
more than $50,000 in damages, but, from the nature of the Pruitts' alleged
damages, it is readily apparent that a recovery could exceed that sum,
especially taking into account any punitive damages.  Cf.  Ex parte Texas
Loss Control Sys., LLC, 164 So. 3d 602, 605 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014).  In
principle, punitive damages would be available on the Pruitts' claims
against AAA if they proved wantonness and not simple negligence.  See,
e.g., CP & B Enters., Inc. v. Mellert, 762 So. 2d 356, 362 (Ala. 2000)
(discussing potential punitive damages for wanton-hiring-and-supervision
claim); Tuscaloosa Cnty. v. Barnett, 562 So. 2d 166, 169 (Ala. 1990)
(discussing punitive damages for wanton-failure-to-maintain claim); see
generally § 6-11-20, Ala. Code 1975.  
7
1200666
Standards of Review
We apply de novo review to rulings on motions to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  Elliott v. Van Kleef, 830 So. 2d 726, 729 (Ala. 2002). 
And we review for excess of discretion trial courts' decisions on the
availability and scope of jurisdictional discovery.  See Branded Trailer
Sales, Inc. v. Universal Truckload Servs., Inc., 74 So. 3d 404, 411, 418-19
(Ala. 2011).
Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, in reviewing the
circuit court's judgment, we are not limited to the reasoning that the
circuit court applied but can affirm its judgment for any legal, valid
reason.  Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. University of Alabama Health Servs.
Found., P.C., 881 So. 2d 1013, 1020 (Ala. 2003); Brannan v. Smith, 784 So.
2d 293, 297 (Ala. 2000).
Analysis
An Alabama court may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant served
out of state, such as AAA, if doing so is consistent with due process and
Rule 4.2(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., which serves the function of Alabama's "long-
arm statute."  Rule 4.2(b) provides:
8
1200666
"An appropriate basis exists for service of process outside of
this state upon a person or entity in any action in this state
when the person or entity has such contacts with this state
that the prosecution of the action against the person or entity
in this state is not inconsistent with the constitution of this
state or the Constitution of the United States ...."
As its text makes clear, Rule 4.2(b) extends long-arm jurisdiction to the
fullest extent consistent with due process under the United States and
Alabama Constitutions (which provide coextensive protections in this
regard).  See Elliott, 830 So. 2d at 730.  Thus, under well-settled due-
process jurisprudence, the dispositive question is whether AAA "ha[s] such
'contacts' with" Alabama that " 'the maintenance of th[is] suit' is
'reasonable, in the context of our federal system of government,' and does
not 'offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' "  Ford
Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. ___, ___, 141
S. Ct. 1017, 1024 (2021) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
326 U.S. 310, 316-17 (1945)) (alteration adopted).  
There are "two kinds of personal jurisdiction: general (sometimes
called all-purpose) jurisdiction and specific (sometimes called case-linked)
jurisdiction."  Id.  It is clear that Alabama does not have general
9
1200666
jurisdiction over AAA.  A defendant is subject to general jurisdiction only
in states where it is " 'essentially at home.' "  Id. (quoting Goodyear
Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)).  For
a corporate defendant, that typically means only the state in which the
defendant is incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place
of business, id., barring the "exceptional case" in which the corporation's
contacts with another state " 'are so "continuous and systematic" ' " that
it is " 'essentially at home' " in that state as well.  Daimler AG v. Bauman,
571 U.S. 117, 139 & n.19 (2014) (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919).  
Here, it is undisputed that AAA is organized under the laws of
Colorado and has its principal place of business there, so neither of the
first two conditions is met.  Nor (on the allegations and record before us)
does AAA have such continuous and systematic contacts with Alabama
that it is at home here despite its out-of-state provenance and
headquarters.  The only relevant allegation in the Pruitts' second
amended complaint is the vague and conclusory assertion that AAA
"conducts business either personally or by agent in Walker County,
Alabama."  The undisputed evidence shows that AAA conducts its vehicle-
10
1200666
transportation business nationwide, has performed transportation jobs for
Alabama customers in the past, has transported at least one Alabama-
plated vehicle, and maintains a website accessible to potential customers
and job applicants who connect to the Internet in Alabama or anywhere
else.
These facts do not come close to establishing that AAA is at home in
Alabama.  A company "that operates in many places can scarcely be
deemed at home in all of them."  Daimler, 571 U.S. at 139 n.20.  Merely
having employees in a state, even in large absolute numbers, is not
enough to make a defendant at home there.  See BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell,
581 U.S. ___, ___, 137 S. Ct. 1549, 1559 (2017) (holding that Montana
could not exercise general jurisdiction over defendant railway corporation
simply because it had "over 2,000 miles of railroad track and more than
2,000 employees" in the state).  And a defendant's maintenance of a
public-facing website, equally accessible from every state, does not make
it at home in any particular state.  Cf. Ex parte Troncalli Chrysler
Plymouth Dodge, Inc., 876 So. 2d 459, 465 (Ala. 2003) (explaining that
11
1200666
online advertising not targeted at a specific state generally does not even
suffice for specific jurisdiction).
AAA is not subject to specific jurisdiction in this case either.  The
touchstone of specific jurisdiction is whether the defendant has
" 'purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities
within the forum State.' "  Ford Motor Co., 592 U.S. at ___, 141 S. Ct. at
1024 (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)).  "This
purposeful-availment requirement assures that a defendant will not be
haled into a jurisdiction as a result of ' "the unilateral activity of another
person or a third person." ' "  Elliott, 830 So. 2d at 731 (quoting Burger
King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985)).  Crucially, specific
jurisdiction must be based on " 'the defendant's contacts with the forum
state that are related to the cause of action' " in the suit at hand, and,
though these contacts " 'need not be continuous and systematic,' " they
must be substantial enough that the defendant could fairly anticipate a
suit in the forum state.  Id. at 730 (quoting Ex parte Phase III Constr.,
Inc., 723 So. 2d 1263, 1266 (Ala. 1998) (Lyons, J., concurring in the
result)); see also Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014) (stressing that
12
1200666
"the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection
with the forum State" (emphasis added)).
Here, the only suit-related conduct by AAA is its conduct involving
the crane truck in which the Pruitts were injured.  But all AAA did with
the crane truck was transport it from Oklahoma to Nevada for Michels
three months before the Pruitts' accident.  The record shows that AAA had
no knowledge of any Alabama business of Michels and that Michels did
not sell the crane truck to Jimmy's until some time after AAA delivered
it to Nevada.  In short, the Pruitts cannot point to any suit-related
conduct of AAA directed at Alabama or any facts indicating that AAA
should have anticipated that its transportation of the crane truck might
lead to a suit in Alabama.
The Pruitts argue that even if they did not affirmatively show
personal jurisdiction on the existing record, the circuit court erred by not
hearing oral testimony or allowing them to cross-examine Wisner by
deposition or in open court.  These arguments are insubstantial.  It is well
settled that a trial court may consider affidavits or any other appropriate
evidence in deciding a Rule 12(b)(2) motion.  See Covington Pike Dodge,
13
1200666
904 So. 2d at 229-30; Ex parte McGinnis, 820 So. 2d 795, 798 (Ala. 2001). 
There is no general requirement that the court hear oral testimony.
Further, as this Court has explained, a plaintiff is not entitled to
discovery to rebut a properly supported Rule 12(b)(2) motion if the
plaintiff fails to "allege facts that would support a colorable claim of
jurisdiction" or to offer more than "bare, attenuated, or unsupported
assertions of personal jurisdiction."  Ex parte Lowengart, 59 So. 3d 673,
678 (Ala. 2010); see also Ex parte Gregory, 947 So. 2d 385, 390 (Ala. 2006);
Troncalli Chrysler, 876 So. 2d at 468.  In this case, the Pruitts actually
obtained discovery in the form of AAA's answers to their request for
admissions, and the undisputed evidence before the circuit court
abundantly showed that (for the reasons stated above) neither general nor
specific personal jurisdiction over AAA could exist.  There was no reason
to believe that further evidentiary development was warranted.  The
circuit court did not exceed its discretion by granting the motion to
dismiss without allowing additional discovery. 
14
1200666
Conclusion
Because AAA is not subject to either general or specific personal
jurisdiction in this case, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and Mendheim, JJ., concur. 
15