• [Start Here]
  • [Home]
  • [Speaking]

Helping lawyers build a better practice

Jeremy W. Richter Jeremy W. Richter Jeremy W. Richter Jeremy W. Richter
  • [Start Here]
  • [Home]
  • [Speaking]

Serving the Interest of Justice with Material Events

Serving the Interest of Justice with Material Events

Serving the Interest of Justice with Material Events

Jan 10, 2017 | Posted by Jeremy W. Richter | Civil Litigation, Transportation |

Ex parte April Steele Benton: When suit may be properly filed in more than one venue, the interest of justice prong of the forum non conveniens statute gives great weight to the county where material events occurred.

Facts of the Matter

On December 4, 2014,  April Steele Benton (Bibb County resident) and Amir Alan Ebrahimi (Shelby County resident) were involved in a collision in Shelby County. Ebrahimi was injured in the accident, and filed suit in Bibb County against Benton and her husband John Benton (owner of the vehicle April was driving), and State Farm (for underinsured motorist benefits).

For Argument’s Sake

The Bentons moved to transfer the action from Bibb County to Shelby County on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, pursuant to Alabama Code (1975) § 6-3-21.1. The Bentons argued that Shelby County had a stronger nexus to the case for the following reasons: (1) the accident occurred in Shelby County; (2) the accident was investigated in Shelby County; (3) the plaintiff Ebrahimi received medical treatment in Shelby and Jefferson Counties; and (4) Bibb County’s only connection to the case was that the Bentons resided there. State Farm  joined the motion to transfer venue, and Ebrahimi did not file a motion in opposition. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the defendants’ motion to transfer venue, and the defendants then filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Ex parte April Steele Benton, et al. [Ms. 1151181], — So.3d — (Ala. Dec. 2, 2016).

We’ve Got Issues

The defendants contended that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to transfer venue to Shelby County under the “interest-of-justice” prong of the forum non conveniens statute, because all the material events giving rise to the plaintiff’s claims occurred in Shelby County. Alabama Code (1975) § 6-3-21.1 reads in pertinent part:

“With respect to civil actions filed in an appropriate venue, any court of general jurisdiction shall, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, or in the interest of justice, transfer any civil action or any claim in any civil action to any court of general jurisdiction in which the action might have been properly filed and the case shall proceed as though originally filed therein.”

As such, a party moving for venue transfer under the forum non conveniens statute has the initial burden of showing that the transfer is justified based on the convenience of the parties and witnesses, or based on the interest of justice.[1]

There is no question that venue is proper in both Bibb County and Shelby County. When venue is proper in more than one county, the plaintiff’s choice of venue is generally given great deference.[2] The issue before the court then is whether the interest of justice overrides the deference given to the plaintiff’s choice of forum.[3]

The prior rulings of the Supreme Court of Alabama have shown that it construes the interest-of-justice prong to give great weight to the fact that the accident occurred in Shelby County and no material events occurred in Bibb County.[4] In fact Bibb County’s only nexus to the case is the fact that the Bentons reside there. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Alabama found no need to burden Bibb County with the matter, with its weak connection to the case, simply because it was the county of residence of the Bentons.

[1] See Ex parte Masonite Corp., 789 So.2d 830, 831 (Ala. 2001).

[2] See Ex parte Perfection Siding, Inc., 882 So.2d 307, 312 (Ala. 2003).

[3] See Ex parte J & W Enters., LLC, 150 So.3d 190, 194 (Ala. 2014).

[4] See e.g., Ex parte Wayne Farms, LLC [Ms. 1150404, May 27, 2016], — So.3d — (Ala. 2016); see also Ex parte Manning, 170 So.3d 638 (Ala. 2014); Ex parte Autaga Heating & Cooling, LLC, 58 So.3d 745 (Ala. 2010); Ex parte Mitchell, 690 So.3d 356 (Ala. 1997).


Photo by Ethan.

Subscribe to get my litigation e-book "Trial By Fire"

Strategies and ideas for more effective voir dire and opening statements

I agree to have my personal information transfered to MailChimp ( more information )

I will never give away, trade, or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Related

You also might be interested in

Denying Unsworn Pleadings That Aren’t Supported by Evidence

Denying Unsworn Pleadings That Aren’t Supported by Evidence

Mar 6, 2017

Ex parte Gentile Company, LLC: Where a party fails to[...]

Forum Non Conveniens Statute Weighs Factors to Determine Venue

Forum Non Conveniens Statute Weighs Factors to Determine Venue

Oct 20, 2016

Ex parte Tier 1 Trucking, LLC, and James Martin Gray, Jr. - In determining the proper venue under the forum non conveniens statute, heavily weighed factors include the location of the incident and investigation, and the counties of residence of parties and witnesses.

Subscribe for my e-book "Trial by Fire"

Want to be a better lawyer? Read my book!

Recent Posts

  • Mini-Reviews on the Books I Read in 2018
  • Make Your Own Opportunity
  • Business Relationships and Courting Potential Clients
  • Why Lawyers Should Be Doing Content Marketing
  • Can Email Batching Increase Your Productivity?

Search the Blog

Contact Me

Send me an email and I'll get back to you.

Send Message

© 2019 · Jeremy W. Richter and Richter Holdings, LLC

  • [Start Here]
  • [Home]
  • [Speaking]
Prev Next