Biz Distribution Company, Inc. v. Crystal Fresh, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/22/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090474 Biz D i s t r i b u t i o n Company, Inc. v. C r y s t a l Fresh, Inc. Appeal from Lamar C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-900023) MOORE, J u d g e . Biz judgment Distribution o f t h e Lamar dismissing, without Fresh, Company, I n c . ( " B i z " ) , a p p e a l s I n c . ("CFI"). Circuit Court ("the t r i a l p r e j u d i c e , i t scomplaint We affirm. from a court") against Crystal 2090474 Biz Biz and CFI e n t e r e d i n t o two agreements p u r s u a n t t o which a g r e e d t o a c t as t h e e x c l u s i v e d i s t r i b u t o r o f CFI i n c e r t a i n n o r t h and w e s t A l a b a m a c o u n t i e s . products On S e p t e m b e r 30, had 2009, B i z f i l e d a complaint a g a i n s t CFI a l l e g i n g t h a t CFI breached agreements, as damaged B i z , those well negligence, wantonness, fraud, with contractual as relations. Biz's dismiss the complaint and intentional CFI on November 4, filed 2009. CFI, that the p a r t i e s had interference a motion In t h a t CFI a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t l a c k e d p e r s o n a l over through motion, jurisdiction c o n t r a c t u a l l y agreed in f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n agreements t h a t actions relating to those agreements would M i n n e s o t a c o u r t s , and t h a t A l a b a m a was See § 6-5-430, A l a . Code 1975. the matter, the trial court be granted decided an i n c o n v e n i e n t A f t e r conducting the motion to any by on dismiss, forum t h i s a c t i o n and t h a t t h e C o u r t s h o u l d d e c l i n e t o e x e r c i s e jurisdiction." the a forum. a hearing s t a t i n g t h a t "the S t a t e of M i n n e s o t a i s the a p p r o p r i a t e for to complaint In t h i s complaint On J a n u a r y 4, 2010, without case, CFI prejudice. moved t h e the t r i a l dismissed B i z t i m e l y appealed. trial on t h r e e i n d e p e n d e n t b a s e s . 2 court court The to dismiss the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not 2090474 s p e c i f y which of the three bases i t r e l i e d upon i n g r a n t i n g the m o t i o n , b u t the language i n the judgment i n d i c a t i n g t h a t it f o u n d M i n n e s o t a t o be t h e " a p p r o p r i a t e "should trial decline to exercise f o r u m " and t h a t i t jurisdiction" suggests that c o u r t e i t h e r found t h a t the p a r t i e s had e n t e r e d binding forum-selection clause requiring the the into a action to be f i l e d i n Minnesota or t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t should e x e r c i s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n t o d e c l i n e j u r i s d i c t i o n i n f a v o r of M i n n e s o t a under § 6-5-430, circuit Code 1975. i n this court prejudice outside Ala. state when an action Section 1 to dismiss i s based 6-5-430 an requires action a without upon a c l a i m o r i g i n a t i n g t h e s t a t e and " i f upon m o t i o n o f any d e f e n d a n t i t i s shown t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s a more a p p r o p r i a t e forum o u t s i d e this s t a t e , t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e l o c a t i o n where t h e a c t s g i v i n g rise to the a c t i o n occurred, and w i t n e s s e s , On error and t h e i n t e r e s t s o f appeal, as to the convenience of the p a r t i e s the Biz argues first that ground, justice." the but trial not court the committed second. CFI T h a t same l a n g u a g e i m p l i e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e j e c t e d the argument t h a t i t l a c k e d p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over CFI, b u t we n e e d n o t d e c i d e t h a t i s s u e t o p r o p e r l y d i s p o s e o f t h i s appeal. 1 3 2090474 maintains that, even i f the t r i a l court erred as t o the m e a n i n g o f t h e f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e , w h i c h we do n o t d e c i d e , the t r i a l court s t i l l a c t e d c o r r e c t l y i n d i s m i s s i n g the case b a s e d on § 6-5-430. In 2010] S o u t u l l o v. M o b i l e ___ So. 3d ___ granted a ( A l a . 2010), [Ms. 1090041, the Mobile a m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r storm-water damage M o b i l e County. grounds County, case filed Court o f l a w ("JML") i n by p r o p e r t y t h e J M L : (1) t h a t applicable to unincorporated areas a and in Circuit 17, owners against I n i t s o r d e r , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s p e c i f i e d two f o r granting judgment Sept. i t s favor t h e " l a w on w a t e r " e n t i t l e d Mobile (2) that the County t o statute of l i m i t a t i o n s h a d e x p i r e d on t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d b y t h e p r o p e r t y owners. On a p p e a l t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , owners a r g u e d s o l e l y that the c i r c u i t the property c o u r t h a d e r r e d as t o the f i r s t ground, i g n o r i n g e n t i r e l y the s t a t u t e - o f - l i m i t a t i o n s defense, which, M o b i l e County argued, alone supported The t h e JML. supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : "In order t o secure a r e v e r s a l , ' t h e a p p e l l a n t has an a f f i r m a t i v e d u t y o f s h o w i n g e r r o r upon t h e r e c o r d . ' T u c k e r v . N i c h o l s , 431 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Ala. 1983). I t i s a f a m i l i a r p r i n c i p l e o f law: 4 2090474 "'When an a p p e l l a n t c o n f r o n t s an issue below t h a t the a p p e l l e e contends w a r r a n t s a j u d g m e n t i n i t s f a v o r and t h e trial c o u r t ' s o r d e r does n o t s p e c i f y a b a s i s f o r i t s r u l i n g , t h e o m i s s i o n o f any argument on a p p e a l as t o t h a t i s s u e i n t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s p r i n c i p a l b r i e f constitutes a waiver with r e s p e c t to the i s s u e . ' " F o g a r t y v. S o u t h w o r t h , 953 So. 2d 1225, 1232 ( A l a . 2006) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). This waiver, namely, the f a i l u r e of the a p p e l l a n t t o d i s c u s s i n t h e o p e n i n g b r i e f an i s s u e on w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t m i g h t have r e l i e d as a b a s i s f o r i t s j u d g m e n t , r e s u l t s i n an a f f i r m a n c e o f t h a t j u d g m e n t . I d . T h a t i s s o , b e c a u s e ' t h i s c o u r t w i l l n o t presume s u c h e r r o r on t h e p a r t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' R o b e r s o n v. C.P. A l l e n C o n s t r . Co., [Ms. 2080537, May 7, 2010] So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . See a l s o Young v. S o u t h e r n L i f e & H e a l t h I n s . Co., 495 So. 2d 601 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . I f an a p p e l l a n t d e f a u l t s on h i s o r h e r d u t y t o show e r r o r by f a i l i n g t o a r g u e i n an o p e n i n g b r i e f an u n s t a t e d g r o u n d t h a t was p l a c e d i n i s s u e below, then, a fortiori, a c h a l l e n g e t o the judgment i s w a i v e d w h e r e , as h e r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c t u a l l y s t a t e s two grounds for its judgment, both grounds are c h a m p i o n e d by t h e a p p e l l e e , and t h e a p p e l l a n t s i m p l y d e c l i n e s t o m e n t i o n one o f t h e two g r o u n d s . B e c a u s e t h e [ p r o p e r t y owners] have p r e t e r m i t t e d d i s c u s s i o n o f one o f t h e two g r o u n d s f o r m i n g t h e b a s i s f o r t h e JML, we p r e t e r m i t d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e o t h e r g r o u n d , and we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t . " So. In 3d a t accordance w a i v e d any the . with Soutullo, argument t h a t t h e trial we that Biz has court erred i n dismissing a c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o § 6-5-430 and 5 conclude t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , we are 2090474 required trial to a f f i r m the court's Estate of by vendor's lien a valid a u t h o r i t y u n d e r § 6-5-430. Schnatz, (failure j u d g m e n t as 983 So. purported deed 2d 408 purchaser to challenge See (Ala. of exercise Civ. court's App. that to comply w i t h estate contracts, compelled law appellate to alternative t h a t documents o f s a l e were v o i d , on state v. 2007) pursuant basis for holding they f a i l e d the also K e l l i s property trial of t o be valid court to ground realaffirm judgment). AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 6 Bryan, and Thomas, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.