Title: Ex parte Alabama Department of Transportation. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Jones Brothers, Inc.; Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America; and Louana Construction Corporation v. Alabama Department of Transportation)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1070288
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: March 7, 2008

REL:3/07/2008
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
____________________
1070288
____________________
Ex parte Alabama Department of Transportation
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: Jones Brothers, Inc.; Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company of America; and Louana Construction Corporation
v.
Alabama Department of Transportation)
(Montgomery Circuit Court, CV-06-2434)
SMITH, Justice.
The Alabama Department of Transportation ("ALDOT")
petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the
trial court to dismiss the underlying action on the basis of
State immunity.  We grant the petition and issue the writ.
1070288
2
Facts and Procedural History
In October 2000, Jones Brothers, Inc. ("JBI"), entered
into a contract with ALDOT to perform construction on a
"flyover 
bridge" 
in 
Hoover 
("the 
contract"). 
 
JBI
subcontracted with Louana Construction Corporation ("Louana")
to perform certain electrical and lighting work required under
the contract.
ALDOT eventually rejected some of the work performed by
JBI and Louana and, pursuant to the contract, assessed
liquidated damages against JBI.  According to the petition,
ALDOT and JBI entered into a claims-review process specified
by the contract.  As a result of the claims-review process, a
"claims committee" recommended that JBI recover some of the
liquidated damages.  However, JBI subsequently sued ALDOT,
Louana, and Louana's surety, Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company of America ("Travelers"), in federal court.  JBI,
Louana, and Travelers ultimately entered into a settlement
agreement, and the federal court action was apparently
dismissed.
JBI, 
Louana, 
and 
Travelers 
(collectively 
"the
plaintiffs") then filed the present action against ALDOT in
1070288
The complaint at one point was amended to alter the ad
1
damnum clause.  
3
the 
Montgomery 
Circuit 
Court, 
seeking 
contribution, 
indemnity,
and damages for breach of contract.  ALDOT filed motions to
dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the action was
barred by Ala. Const. 1901, § 14.  ALDOT renewed its motions
to dismiss on September 21, 2007.  The renewed motion stated,
in part:
"8. On July 20, 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court
ruled 
in 
Ex 
parte 
Alabama 
Department 
of
Transportation, No. 1060078, ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala.
July 20, 2007) that a complaint naming the Alabama
Department of Transportation is improperly filed and
does not vest the trial court with subject matter
jurisdiction. ... The result is that the complaint
is due to be dismissed and the Court may not take
any other action other than 'to exercise its power
to dismiss the action ....' 
"9. Identical to the complaint filed in Ex parte
Alabama Dep't of Transp., the complaint filed in the
present action seeks to 'effect an action against
the State in violation of § 14, Ala. Const. 1901.'
See id. Consequently, neither Plaintiffs' Complaint
nor Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint[ ] has vested the
1
trial court with any subject matter jurisdiction and
the present action must be dismissed. See id.
"10. The July 20, 2007 decision was confirmed in
an August 10, 2007 ruling from the Alabama Supreme
Court, Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Transp., No.
1051661, ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. Aug. 10, 2007), in
which an identical holding was issued.... 
"11. Based on this caselaw, ALDOT renews its
1070288
According to ALDOT, the complaint was not subsequently
2
amended.  Generally, when the trial court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, it has no power to take any action other than to
dismiss the complaint.  See Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Transp.,
[Ms. 1060078, July 20, 2007] ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (Ala. 2007),
Ex parte Blankenship, 893 So. 2d 303, 306-07 (Ala. 2004).
Because the plaintiffs did not attempt to amend the complaint,
we will not review the issue whether the trial court had
jurisdiction to enter the order.
4
previous Motions to Dismiss, and again asks this
Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Amended
Complaint, as there is no basis for subject matter
jurisdiction of these Complaints."
The trial court denied the motions on October 24, 2007,
and purported to order the plaintiffs to amend the complaint
and to name proper parties within 10 days.   ALDOT petitioned
2
this Court for mandamus relief, and we ordered an answer and
briefs.  
Standard of Review
"A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy,
and is appropriate when the petitioner can show (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).
"[A] petition for a writ of mandamus is an appropriate means
for seeking review of an order denying a claim of immunity."
Ex parte Butts, 775 So. 2d 173, 176 (Ala. 2000).  
1070288
5
Discussion
"Section 14, Ala. Const. 1901, provides '[t]hat
the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant
in any court of law or equity.' This section affords
the State and its agencies an 'absolute' immunity
from suit in any court. Ex parte Mobile County Dep't
of Human Res., 815 So. 2d 527, 530 (Ala. 2001)
(stating that Ala. Const. 1901, § 14, confers on the
State of Alabama and its agencies absolute immunity
from suit in any court); Ex parte Tuscaloosa County,
796 So. 2d 1100, 1103 (Ala. 2000) ('Under Ala.
Const. of 1901, § 14, the State of Alabama has
absolute immunity from lawsuits. This absolute
immunity extends to arms or agencies of the
state....'). Indeed, this Court has described § 14
as an 'almost invincible' 'wall' of immunity.
Alabama State Docks v. Saxon, 631 So. 2d 943, 946
(Ala. 1994). This 'wall of immunity' is 'nearly
impregnable,' Patterson v. Gladwin Corp., 835 So. 2d
137, 142 (Ala. 2002), and bars 'almost every
conceivable type of suit.' Hutchinson v. Board of
Trustees of Univ. of Ala., 288 Ala. 20, 23, 256 So.
2d 281, 283 (1971). Moreover, if an action is an
action against the State within the meaning of § 14,
such a case 'presents a question of subject-matter
jurisdiction, which cannot be waived or conferred by
consent.' Patterson, 835 So. 2d at 142-43."
Haley v. Barbour County, 885 So. 2d 783, 788 (Ala. 2004)
(emphasis added).
ALDOT, as a State agency, is absolutely immune from suit.
Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Transp., [Ms. 1051661, August 10,
2007] ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (Ala. 2007) ("ALDOT is a State
agency ... and, therefore, is absolutely immune from suit.").
Generally, "any exceptions to that immunity extend only to
1070288
6
suits naming the proper State official in his or her
representative capacity."  Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Transp.,
[Ms. 1060078, July 20, 2007] ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (Ala. 2007)
(emphasis added).
In the instant case, ALDOT is the only named defendant;
no State official has been named by the plaintiffs as a party
in this case.  There is no argument advanced that § 14 does
not apply.  Because § 14 deprives the trial court of
jurisdiction to entertain this action against ALDOT, the
action is due to be dismissed.  See Alabama Dep't of Transp.
v. Harbert Int'l, Inc., [Ms. 1050271, March 7, 2008] ___ So.
2d ___, ___ (Ala. 2008) (dismissing ALDOT as a party for lack
of jurisdiction based on State immunity).
Conclusion
ALDOT is entitled to State immunity in the underlying
action; therefore, we grant the petition for the writ of
mandamus and direct the trial court to dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Cobb, C.J., and See, Woodall, and Parker, JJ., concur.