Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Alfa Mutual Insurance Company petitioned for mandamus relief when a circuit court denied its motion to strike an amended complaint filed by plaintiffs Ronald and Mary Land on a dispute between the parties on a dispute arising out of a farm-owner's policy insurance issued to the Langs by Alfa. The matter was set for trial and was continued on at least four occasions. Thereafter, in connection with further discovery efforts by the Langs, Alfa asked whether the Langs intended to amend their original complaint and allegedly received no response from the Langs' attorney. Almost exactly two years from the filing date of their original complaint, the Langs filed an amended complaint, which added a fictitiously named defendant identified as the party "whose responsibility it was to inspect the property of the Langs, to insure their farm policy provide[d] adequate coverage and/or that the Langs were not paying for insurance to property which they did not own." The Langs' complaint, as amended, added new counts asserting negligence and fraudulent/reckless misrepresentation and an additional breach-of-contract claim. Alfa moved to strike the amended complaint on numerous grounds. The Supreme Court granted Alfa's application and issued the writ, finding that the Langs failed to demonstrate good cause ("or, in fact, any cause") for the excessive delay in amending their complaint when they knew or should have known of the claims before or at the time they filed their original complaint. "Further, the claims were actually suggested by Alfa's counsel." At the time the Langs filed their amendment, the case had been set for trial on several occasions, and the amendment would unduly prejudice Alfa, who, as a result of the Langs' excessive delay, could not fully and fairly defend against the claims added by the amendment because a key witness had died.The trial court exceeded its discretion in allowing the Langs to amend their complaint so near the trial date in order to add claims based on facts that were or ought to have been known to the Langs well prior to that date. View "Ex parte Alfa Mutual Insurance Company." on Justia Law

Defendant Kelly Lucas applied for mandamus relief, requesting that the Alabama Supreme Court direct Shelby Circuit Court to vacate its December 7, 2015, order denying her motion for a summary judgment and to grant the motion. This application arose out of the court case surrounding two related automobile accidents in 2011: in the first, Megan Gragg failed to stop her vehicle and allowed the front bumper of her vehicle to collide with the rear bumper of Diana McKee's vehicle. Shortly thereafter, in the second accident, Lucas failed to stop her vehicle and allowed the front bumper of her vehicle to collide with the rear bumper of Gragg's vehicle, which then collided with the rear bumper of McKee's vehicle a second time. All three drivers spoke with the law enforcement officer who responded after the accidents, and the officer later completed two accident reports. McKee sued Gragg, alleging negligence and wantonness in connection with the accidents. Lucas filed an answer to the amended complaint. She denied McKee's allegations and also asserted affirmative defenses, including the expiration of the statute of limitations. After review of the trial court record, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that Lucas met her burden for mandamus relief, and that the Circuit Court erred in denying her motion for summary judgment. The Court therefore granted Lucas' application and issued the writ. The Circuit Court was directed to vacate its order and enter summary judgment in Lucas' favor. View "Ex parte Kelly Martin Lucas." on Justia Law

In her application for rehearing, K.G.S. did not argue that the Alabama Supreme Court overlooked or misapprehended any point of law or fact in holding that J. Michael Druhan, a Mobile attorney, had been improperly appointed to hear the case after the recusal of Judge Don Davis. Instead, K.G.S. moved the Court to "consider the Affidavit of Probate Judge Don Davis and its attached Order of the Presiding Judge of the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama date April 28, 2010." K.G.S. had an "obligation to attach to her petition '[c]opies of any order or opinion or parts of the record that would be essential to an understanding of the matter set forth in the petition.'" But the Supreme Court found K.G.S. failed to do so, omitting the April 28, 2010 order. The Supreme Court overruling K.G.S.'s application for review: "K.G.S. may not now, for the first time in her application for rehearing, present additional documentation in support of her argument." Furthermore, the Court found K.G.S. did not present any evidence indicating that Judge Davis ever certified to the presiding judge of the circuit court his inability to serve in the case. "Therefore, even if we were to consider the new documents presented by K.G.S., she has not demonstrated that this Court overlooked or misapprehended any point of law or fact." View "Ex parte K.R." on Justia Law

CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C. ("CVS"), petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Montgomery Circuit Court to dismiss the complaint of the plaintiff Mildred Scott, as untimely filed. Scott filed a complaint asserting negligence and wantonness claims against CVS after she slipped and fell in a CVS store while shopping. Scott did not pay a filing fee when she filed the complaint; she filed an "Affidavit of Substantial Hardship," indicating that she was unable to pay the filing fee. The circuit court entered an order purporting to declare Scott indigent and to waive the filing fee. On that same day, the summons against CVS was issued, and CVS was served with the summons and complaint. A few days after the complaint was served, the circuit court entered an order reversing its earlier order, and denying Scott's affidavit of substantial hardship. Several days after this, Scott paid the filing fee. CVS moved to dismiss Scott's complaint on the ground that the applicable two-year statutory limitations period had expired without the payment of the filing fee or the approval of Scott's affidavit of substantial hardship. The circuit court denied CVS's motion to dismiss. Finding that the circuit court erred in this dismissal, the Supreme Court granted CVS' writ application. View "Ex parte CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Wayne Farms, LLC, petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus ordering the Bullock Circuit Court to vacate its order denying Wayne Farms' motion for a change of venue and to enter an order transferring the underlying action to the Pike Circuit Court. Ben and Imogene Hicks owned and operated a chicken farm in Pike County. In April 2013, Imogene entered into an agreement in which Wayne Farms agreed to deliver flocks of broiler chicks to the Hickses' farm. Ronnie King, an employee of Wayne Farms, drove a tractor-trailer owned by Wayne Farms to the Hickses' farm to pick up a load of chickens. After the chickens were loaded, King began to drive the tractor-trailer away. Before King left the Hickses' property, the loaded trailer detached from the tractor and overturned, pinning Ben to the ground and causing him to be injured. Ben and Imogene sued Wayne Farms and King in Bullock County, alleging claims of negligence and wantonness and seeking damages for Ben's injuries. Wayne Farms moved the Bullock Circuit Court to transfer the action to the Pike Circuit Court, acknowledging that venue was proper in Bullock County but that pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens the action should have been transferred to Pike County. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the writ, concluding Wayne Farms demonstrated a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus directing the Bullock Circuit Court to vacate its order denying Wayne Farms' motion for a change of venue and to enter an order transferring the underlying action to Pike County. View "Ex parte Wayne Farms, LLC." on Justia Law

Petitioners Town of Summerdale, the City of Robertsdale, and Baldwin County Sewer Services, LLC ("BCSS") independently petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for certiorari review of a Court of Civil Appeals' decision. In it, the appellate court concluded that the petitioners lacked standing to file actions against the East Central Baldwin County Water, Sewer and Fire Protection Authority ("ECBC") and the Baldwin County Commission ("the county commission") seeking a judgment declaring that two amendments to the articles of incorporation of ECBC approved by the county commission (one in 2002 and the other in 2008) were void. The Supreme Court granted review except for Summerdale's challenge to the 2008 amendment. The Court concluded that petitioners had standing, and accordingly reversed the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals. View "Ex parte Baldwin County Sewer Services, LLC." on Justia Law

The Circuit Court dismissed claims asserted by St. Union Baptist Church, Inc. ("the corporation"), against Reverend James M. Howard, Sr., and the counterclaims asserted by Howard against the corporation and its directors after concluding that their dispute was ecclesiastical in nature and outside the jurisdiction of the court. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the corporation's claims because they were indeed ecclesiastical in nature and outside the Circuit Court's jurisdiction. But the Court reversed dismissal of Howard's claims because the issues underlying that appeal involved only the financial affairs and property rights of the church. Howard's case was remanded for further proceedings. View "St. Union Baptist Church, Inc. v. Howard" on Justia Law

Jim Bishop Chevrolet-Buick-Pontiac-GMC, Inc. ("Jim Bishop"), appealed judgment entered on jury verdicts in favor of Michael and Tina Burden ("Burden"). In 2012, the Burdens sued General Motors, LLC, Jim Bishop, and Lynn Layton Chevrolet, Inc. ("Lynn Layton"), to recover damages for injuries they allegedly sustained as the result of a fire that occurred in a truck they had purchased from an automobile dealership owned and operated by Jim Bishop. When Jim Bishop filed its answer, also generally denying the allegations contained in the complaint and asserting certain affirmative defenses, Jim Bishop further asserted a cross-claim against General Motors alleging it had refused to indemnify Jim Bishop. The Burdens eventually entered into pro tanto settlements with General Motors, which agreed to pay them $20,000, and Lynn Layton, which agreed to pay them $32,000, as to the respective claims asserted by the Burdens against those defendants. The settlement with General Motors resolved the breach-of-warranty claims and the "Magnuson-Moss" claim. The trial court dismissed the Burdens' claims against both General Motors and Lynn Layton pursuant to joint stipulations of dismissal filed by those parties. Jim Bishop moved the trial court for a summary judgment on the Burdens' remaining claims against it, moved at the close of evidence for a judgment as a matter of law, and renewed its JML motion post-verdict. All three were denied, and the jury returned its verdict against Jim Bishop. Based on its review of the facts entered into the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in failing to grant Jim Bishop's motion for a JML and in submitting the case to the jury. Therefore, it reversed the judgment entered in favor of the Burdens on the jury's verdicts and rendered a judgment for Jim Bishop. View "Jim Bishop Chevrolet-Buick-Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. Burden" on Justia Law

Synovus Bank appealed a circuit court order denying Synovus's motion to set aside a joint stipulation of dismissal. Synovus sued Tom James Mitchell d/b/a Mitchell Motors ("Mitchell") seeking damages for Mitchell's alleged default on a promissory note. Mitchell moved to dismiss, or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to another circuit court. Mitchell argued that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that, should the case nevertheless be allowed to proceed, venue was proper only in Jefferson County. The Walker Circuit Court entered an order denying Mitchell's motion to dismiss and transferring the case to the Jefferson Circuit Court. Ordinarily, the Supreme Court reviewed the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion to determine whether, in denying the motion, the trial court exceeded its discretion. However, in this case, the trial court based its denial of Synovus's Rule 60(b) motion not on the merits of the motion but, rather, on the trial court's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. Because the trial court did not consider the merits of Synovus's motion, the Supreme Court could not address Synovus's argument that the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying the motion; "indeed, there was no exercise of discretion for this Court to review." Thus, the Court reversed the order denying Synovus's Rule 60(b) motion and remanded the case for the trial court to consider the merits of Synovus's Rule 60(b) motion and to enter a judgment in accordance with its consideration of the merits of that motion. View "Synovus Bank v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

North American Adjusters, Inc. ("North American"), petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacate certain orders denying a jury trial in this case because the written jury demand endorsed on the plaintiff's complaint was not signed. In 2013, Jeffery Saulsberry, acting pro se, filed a verified complaint against Green Tree Financial, LLC, Daniel Hood, and fictitiously named defendants on claims of trespass; invasion of privacy; conversion; negligence; and theft of property. Saulsberry included at the end of his complaint a demand for "A Trial By A Struck Jury," and for each of his asserted claims he sought compensatory and punitive damages "in an amount to be determined by the Jury." Additionally, a notation of a requested jury demand appears on the civil cover sheet, which Saulsberry served simultaneously with the summons and complaint. Saulsberry added as defendants North American and American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida ("American Bankers"). According to North American, American Bankers has yet to be properly served. In 2015, after North American learned that the trial court would be removing the case from its jury docket and placing it on a nonjury docket, it filed a motion to certify that the case would be tried by a jury. Saulsberry then filed an amended complaint seeking to, among other things, withdraw the jury demand on the ground that it was "without proper attestation." The trial court entered an order denying North American's motion to certify that the case would be tried by a jury; the trial court noted in its order that a "Jury Demand may be endorsed upon a pleading; none has been done in this case." North American unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that North American had shown it had a "(1) a clear legal right ... to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon [the trial court] to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court." Accordingly, the Court granted North American's petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the circuit court to vacate its orders finding that there had been no "indorsement upon a pleading" because the endorsement was not signed. View "Ex parte North American Adjusters, Inc." on Justia Law