The opinion
Rel: April 21, 2023
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern
Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts,
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023
_________________________
1210300
_________________________
Ex parte Walmart Inc. et al.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: Mobile County Board of Health and Family Oriented
Primary Health Care Clinic, Inc.
v.
Mitchell "Chip" Fisher et al.)
(Mobile Circuit Court: CV-19-902806)
_________________________
1210313
_________________________
1210300 and 1210313
Mobile County
v.
Mobile County Board of Health and Family Oriented Primary
Health Care Clinic, Inc.
Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court
(CV-19-902806)
PER CURIAM.
1210300 -- PETITION DENIED. NO OPINION.
Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, Stewart, and
Mitchell, JJ., concur.
Sellers, J., dissents, with opinion.
Cook, J., recuses himself.
1210313 -- AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.
See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.
Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, Stewart, and
Mitchell, JJ., concur.
Sellers, J., dissents, with opinion.
Cook, J., recuses himself.
2
1210300 and 1210313
SELLERS, Justice (dissenting).
The Mobile County Board of Health ("the Board") and Family
Oriented Primary Health Care Clinic, Inc. ("the Clinic"), commenced an
action in the Mobile Circuit Court against various opioid manufacturers,
opioid distributors, and pharmacies. The Board and the Clinic sought
relief because, they alleged, they had been impacted by an opioid crisis
allegedly created by the defendants. In case number 1210300, Walmart
Inc. and other defendants seek a writ of mandamus directing the trial
court to grant their motion for a judgment on the pleadings because, they
assert, Alabama's abatement statute, § 6-5-440, Ala. Code 1975, requires
dismissal of the action. Consistent with my dissent in Ex parte Cardinal
Health, Inc., [Ms. 1210337, Mar. 17, 2023] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2023)
(Sellers, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent from the Court's decision
today to deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. I also dissent from
the Court's decision in case number 1210313, an appeal that has been
consolidated with the referenced petition for a writ of mandamus, to
affirm the trial court's judgment denying Mobile County's motion to
intervene in the action. Based on my conclusion regarding the petition
for a writ of mandamus and the applicability of the abatement statute, I
3
1210300 and 1210313
would dismiss Mobile County's appeal as moot.
4