explaining that "[t]his Court has held that a writ of mandamus is an appropriate means by which to review the following: subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Johnson, 715 So. 2d 783 (Ala. 1998); … personal jurisdiction, Ex parte Duck Boo Int'l Co., 985 So. 2d 900 (Ala. 2007); … a denial of a motion for a change of venue when venue has been challenged as improper, Ex parte Daniels, 941 So. 2d 251 (Ala. 2006) …."
How later courts described this case
- explaining that "[t]his Court has held that a writ of mandamus is an appropriate means by which to review the following: subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Johnson, 715 So. 2d 783 (Ala. 1998); … personal jurisdiction, Ex parte Duck Boo Int'l Co., 985 So. 2d 900 (Ala. 2007); … a denial of a motion for a change of venue when venue has been challenged as improper, Ex parte Daniels, 941 So. 2d 251 (Ala. 2006) …."
- issuing a writ of mandamus directing the dismissal of the plaintiff's case where it was "apparent on the face of the complaint that there is an obvious conflict-of-laws issue" and it "would waste the resources of the court and the parties, and an appeal after a final judgment would be an inadequate remedy, where an action would be barred if the law of another state applied" (emphasis added)
- holding that a petition for the writ of mandamus is an appropriate mechanism for reviewing issues regarding the grant of a supersedeas bond
- differentiating fraud claims, where the alleged injury is financial, from claims alleging malicious prosecution, where the alleged injury is an antecedent lawsuit with mere indirect financial costs
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BRYAN, Justice
(concurring specially).
I write specially to emphasize my belief that mandamus is appropriate where, as here, “there is an obvious conflict-of-laws issue,” 148 So.3d at 1065, and the application of one state’s laws would completely bar the action. It would be an inexcusable waste of scarce judicial resources and of the parties’ resources to require a trial and possibly an appeal when it is clear that, under the doctrine of lex loci delicti, Washington law applies to bar the malicious-prosecution action filed by Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc. See Fitts v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 581 So.2d 819, 820 (Ala.1991) (“Under th[e] principle [of lex loci delicti ], an Alabama court will determine the substantive rights of an injured party according to the law of the state where the injury occurred.”).