We are committed to sharing decisions and providing legal updates that may be beneficial to you and your teams. Included below are summaries of cases recently released by Alabama Appellate Courts. Please reach out to any member of our
Appellate Practice
group
with any questions.
Warm regards,
Team
Huie
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama Appellate Opinions Released
February 2, 2018
|
|
Trial Court Has No Personal Jurisdiction Over California Talent Agency in Mobile County Personal Injury Case
Ex Parte International Creative Management Partners, LLC
(Civil Procedure)
International Creative Management (ICM) is a talent agency headquartered in Los Angeles, California. None of its members or managers reside in Alabama, nor does it lease property in Alabama. Nick Storch, one of its agents, worked out of ICM's office in New York City. Red Mountain Entertainment contacted Storch about scheduling Cannibal Corpse for a live concert in Mobile, Alabama. During the course of the negotiations, no agent of ICM traveled to Alabama. Jordan Pardue, the plaintiff, attended the concert. The concert crowd became violent, resulting in Pardue being thrown to the ground and suffering a spinal cord injury.
Pardue filed suit against ICM, Red Mountain Entertainment, and others for injuries suffered at the concert. ICM moved to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, based on its conclusion that it had both general and specific jurisdiction over ICM, and ICM petitioned for mandamus review. As for general jurisdiction, the Supreme Court held that there was nothing before it that indicated that ICM’s contacts with Alabama were so “continuous and systematic” to render it “at home” in Alabama. As for specific jurisdiction, the Court found that ICM had no relationship to Alabama until it was contacted by Red Mountain Entertainment. Furthermore, the Court held that ICM had “very little relationship” to Pardue’s claims, and ICM’s relationship with the forum was “too minor” to warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
|
|
Supreme Court Enforces Outbound Forum-Selection Clause
Ex Parte United Propane Gas, Inc.
(Class Actions)
CSS, a Cullman, Alabama corporation, was a customer of a United Propane affiliate. CSS entered into a pre-purchase contract with United Propane for the purchase of 550 gallons of propane at a fixed price. The contract contained an outbound forum-selection clause, which provided that the agreement was governed by Kentucky law, and that McCracken County, Kentucky courts had exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute arising from the contract. In April 2014, CSS filed a class action lawsuit in McCracken County. The court dismissed the complaint, because none of the individual claims were equal to the jurisdictional minimum of $5,000. CSS then filed a class action in the Cullman County Circuit Court on the same claim. United moved to dismiss, but the trial court denied the motion, holding that the forum-selection clause unfairly deprived CSS of the ability to file a class action, which contravenes public policy. United petitioned for a writ of mandamus.
The Alabama Supreme Court held that the inability to bring a class action on a small claim, standing alone, does not render the forum-selection clause unconscionable. Distinguishing
Leonard v. Terminix
, 854 So. 2d 529 (Ala. 2002), the Court held that the underlying forum-selection clause was not unconscionable because United and CSS were both businesses, and the dispute in
Leonard
also involved limitations on contractual damages, as well as an arbitration provision. The Court also noted that it consistently held that outbound forum-selection clauses were not per se void as against public policy. CSS therefore failed to clearly establish that the enforcement of the forum-selection clause would be unreasonable or unfair. Accordingly, the Court granted United’s petition and issued the writ.
|
|
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
|
|
Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Workers’ Compensation Case Dismissed As Untimely
Ex parte Travel Centers of America, Inc.
(Workers’ Compensation / Appellate)
On January 29, 2017, an employee of Travel Centers of America filed a complaint seeking workers’ compensation benefits. Travel Centers admitted that it received adequate notice, but denied all the material allegations in the complaint. Travel Centers asserted as an affirmative defense that the employee’s injury had not arisen out of and in the course of her employment, but instead was the result of pre-existing conditions unrelated to the employment. Travel Centers refused to provide the employee with a panel of four physicians from which she could select an authorized treating physician, and filed a motion for declaratory relief, requesting an order that the employee was not entitled to select from a panel of four without first resolving the issue of compensability. The trial court denied Travel Centers’ motion on August 9, 2017. Following the trial court’s order, Travel Centers did not provide the employee with a panel.
The employee filed a motion to hold Travel Centers in contempt. Travel Centers maintained that it had not disobeyed an order of the trial court and the employee had not yet proven compensability of the injury. The trial court ordered Travel Centers to provide the panel within 21 days. On September 28, Travel Centers moved the trial court to vacate its order. The trial court took the motion under advisement on October 2. Travel Centers petitioned for a writ of mandamus on October 30, arguing that the trial court erred in ordering it to provide a panel of four without first resolving the issue of compensability. The Alabama Supreme Court refused to reach the issue, holding that Travel Centers did not timely file a petition for writ of mandamus, reiterating that appeals from judgments in workers’ compensation cases must be filed within 42 days of entry of the judgment. The Court held that the order Travel Centers complained of was the August 9 denial of its motion for declaratory relief, because that order effectively determined that Travel Centers had no right to refuse the panel of four.
|
|
Disputes Regarding the Amount of Damages Did Not Make the Damages “Uncertain” for the Purposes of Awarding Pre-Judgment Interest
Ballard v. Lee A. McWilliams Construction, Inc.
(Remedies)
Lee McWilliams Construction (“the company”) performed renovation work on a home owned by Ballard in 2010. Ballard verbally agreed to pay for the cost of materials plus 18%. The owner of the company sued Ballard in July 2015, seeking $27,612.52 in damages based on Ballard’s failure to pay the amount owed to the company. The company later amended its complaint. Ballard answered and brought counterclaims alleging breach of implied warranty and fraudulent misrepresentation. A judgment was entered for the company at trial in the amount of $25,953.75. The company filed a timely post-judgment motion, arguing that it was entitled to pre-judgment interest. The trial court failed to rule on the motion within 90 days, and the motion was deemed denied. The company appealed.
On appeal, the company argued that the trial court erred in refusing to award it pre-judgment interest, which it contended was due under Ala. Code § 8-8-8. The company sought pre-judgment interest from the due date of the amount owed under the parties’ oral contract. Ballard argued that the damages the company had requested changed during the course of the litigation, and that she contested certain charges on the invoices, making the amount of damages uncertain or capable of being made certain for the purposes of awarding pre-judgment interest. The Court of Civil Appeals disagreed. It held that the parties’ disagreement as to the amount of damages owed under the contract did not make the damages uncertain. Instead, the damages in this case were capable of being reasonably ascertained at the time of the breach by mathematical computation.
|
|
"The leading rule for the lawyer, as for the man of every other calling, is diligence. Leave nothing for to-morrow which can be done to-day. Never let your correspondence fall behind." ~Abraham Lincoln
|
|
HUIE APPELLATE PRACTICE GROUP
|
|
No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
