Court Opinion

ID: 9936896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:00:19.914702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:59.911932
License: Public Domain

I concur fully in the very thorough and well-reasoned main opinion. I write specially to address the plaintiffs' concerns expressed at oral argument over the prospect for an unseemly race to judgment if this Court were to permit the Mobile action to proceed.
As the main opinion recognizes, the Clarke County action, to the extent that it seeks an in voluntary judicial dissolution, could proceed. Of course, if a judicial dissolution of Bedsole Land were obtained in the Clarke County action, the proceedings in the Mobile action would be substantially affected or perhaps mooted, but this scenario does not constitute a race to judgment on the same issues. On the other hand, should the plaintiffs in the Clarke County action attempt to assert through an amended complaint in that action matters that would constitute a compulsory counterclaim in the Mobile action, *Page 523 
Bedsole would be entitled to injunctive relief against further proceedings to avoid a race to judgment as to the issues first raised in the Mobile action. See Smith v. Charles E. Jay Co.,292 Ala. 513, 296 So.2d 885 (1974). See also Ex parte BremanLake View Resort, L.P., 729 So.2d 849, 851 (Ala. 1999) ("This Court has held that the obligation imposed on a defendant under Rule 13(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., to assert compulsory counterclaims, when read in conjunction with § 6-5-440, Ala. Code 1975, which prohibits a party from prosecuting two actions for the same cause and against the same party, is tantamount to making the defendant with a compulsory counterclaim in the first action a `plaintiff' in that action (for purposes of § 6-5-440) as of the time of its commencement. See, e.g., Ex parte Parsons Whittemore AlabamaPine Constr. Corp., 658 So.2d 414 (Ala. 1995); Penick v. CadoSystems of Cent. Alabama, Inc., 628 So.2d 598 (Ala. 1993); Exparte Canal Ins. Co., 534 So.2d 582 (Ala. 1988). Thus, the defendant subject to the counterclaim rule who commences another action has violated the prohibition in § 6-5-440 against maintaining two actions for the same cause.").