Title: American Family Care, Inc., v. Salters
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1101505
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: March 9, 2012

REL: 03/09/12
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, 2011-2012
_________________________
1101505
_________________________
Ex parte American Family Care, Inc.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re:  American Family Care, Inc.
v.
Anita Salters)
(Jefferson Circuit Court, CV-11-901880)
WOODALL, Justice.
1101505
2
American Family Care, Inc. ("AFC"), has petitioned this
Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Jefferson Circuit
Court to vacate its order staying the civil action filed by
AFC against Anita Salters.  We grant the petition and issue
the writ.
AFC is an acute/urgent-care medical provider with offices
in Alabama and Tennessee.  It conducts centralized billing for
its services from its claims-processing center ("the center"),
located in its corporate office in Hoover, Alabama. 
Salters is a former employee of AFC.  When she was hired,
she executed a confidentiality agreement and agreed not to
remove AFC's property from its offices.  Salters was the
director of the center from 2007 to June 2010, when her
employment was terminated.  As the director, she was
responsible for handling billing issues and claim audits
performed by insurance companies and governmental agencies.
In 
some 
instances, 
Salters 
had 
the 
only 
copies 
of
communications related to billing inquiries and claim audits.
In April 2011, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
("FBI") executed a search warrant at AFC's corporate office.
The FBI removed mostly billing records.  After the search
1101505
3
warrant was executed, AFC determined that it was missing
corporate records it would need to defend itself against any
criminal charges that might be filed as a result of the FBI
investigation. According to AFC, several of its employees
reported that Salters had been seen removing files and records
from the corporate offices shortly before she was fired.  AFC
made written demand upon Salters for the return of the
records, but she did not respond.  
On May 27, 2011, AFC sued Salters in the Jefferson
Circuit Court, seeking the return of any business records of
AFC'S that Salters might have.  On June 23, 2011, Salters
answered the complaint, denying that she had removed any AFC
records from its offices.  
On July 7, 2011, the trial court, sua sponte, entered an
order staying AFC's action "until further notice."  The trial
court expressed no reason for entering the indefinite stay.
On July 12, AFC filed a motion to vacate the stay, which the
trial court heard on August 11.  According to AFC, at the
hearing, the trial court was unable to provide it with any
reason for the entry of the stay.  On August 12, 2011, the
1101505
4
trial court denied the motion to vacate the stay, and AFC
timely petitioned this Court for mandamus review.  
"A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is
available when a trial court has exceeded its discretion."  Ex
parte Antonucci, 917 So. 2d 825, 830 (Ala. 2005).  AFC argues
that the trial court exceeded its discretion in entering, on
its own motion and without explanation, an indefinite stay of
AFC's action against Salters seeking the return of its
corporate records.  We agree.
In considering a stay, courts must always be mindful of
"[t]he interest of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously
with the civil litigation ... and the potential prejudice to
the plaintiff of a delay in the progress of that litigation."
Ex parte Ebbers, 871 So. 2d 776, 789 (Ala. 2003).  AFC's
interest in proceeding with its action against Salters is
quite strong.  Indeed, it has alleged that it "has a right to
obtain its property back from Salters to protect itself in the
federal investigation of [its] billing practices," and it
argues that it should not be required "to sit back and allow
the federal investigation to proceed without the documentation
that it needs to defend itself."  Petition, at 7.  AFC's
1101505
Salters has not opposed AFC's petition for the writ of
1
mandamus, and the trial court has chosen not to appear in this
proceeding.  See Rule 21(b), Ala. R. App. P.
5
arguments appear sound, and this Court has been provided with
no argument or reasoning to the contrary.  
1
It is well established that "[a] stay must not be
'immoderate.'" Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Commc'ns,
Inc., 221 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting CTI-
Container Leasing Corp. v. Uiterwyk Corp., 685 F.2d 1284, 1288
(11th Cir. 1982)).  "In considering whether a stay is
'immoderate,' [appellate courts] examine both the scope of the
stay (including its potential duration) and the reasons cited
by the [trial] court for the stay." Id.  Clearly, the
indefinite stay ordered by the trial court, with no stated
justification for it, is immoderate and, consequently, beyond
the scope of the trial court's discretion. 
For these reasons, we grant AFC's petition and issue a
writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate its order
staying AFC's action against Salters.  
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. 
Malone, C.J., and Bolin, Murdock, and Main, JJ., concur.