(In re: Gregory Nix v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.) (2019)

On Application for Rehearing

APPLICATION OVERRULED.

The question of what constitutes “doing business” for purposes of a determination of venue under § 6-3-7(a)(4), Ala. Code 1975, and the question of what constitutes “minimum contacts” for purposes of in personam jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution are two different questions. What constitutes “doing business” within the contemplation of the former was well explained in the analysis offered by the main opinion on original submission. I concurred in that opinion and in overruling Ex parte Scott Bridge Co., 834 So.2d 79 (Ala. 2002), and I now concur in overruling the application for rehearing, on the basis of that analysis and the authorities cited in my dissenting opinions in Ex parte Greenetrack, Inc., 25 So.3d 449, 458 (Ala. 2009), and Ex parte Elliott, 80 So.3d 908, 914 (Ala. 2011). See Frees v. Southern Mich. Cold Storage Co., 43 Mich. App. 756, 757, 204 N.W.2d 782, 783 (1972); Hartung v. Central Ill. Pub. Serv. Co., 110 Ill. App. 3d 816, 66 Ill.Dec. 493, 443 N.E.2d 16 (1982) (distinguishing between “ ‘doing business’ within a county for purposes of venue” and “ ‘business activity [that] must be demonstrated ․ for purposes of’ ” in personam jurisdiction (quoting Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Mosele, 67 Ill. 2d 321, 10 Ill.Dec. 602, 368 N.E.2d 88 (1977))); Gardner v. International Harvester Co., 113 Ill. 2d 535, 541, 101 Ill.Dec. 842, 845, 499 N.E.2d 430, 433 (1986); Saturn Sys., Inc. v. Saturn Corp., 659 F.Supp.865 (D. Minn. 1987); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Superior Court of Alameda Cty., 17 Cal. 3d 259, 270, 131 Cal. Rptr. 231, 239, 551 P.2d 847, 855 (1976) (noting that the issues of venue and in personam jurisdiction entail “completely different policy considerations” and that “[i]t is inappropriate to apply a ‘minimum contacts’ test to determine whether defendants are doing business” in a given county for purposes of determining venue); and Farmers' & Ginners' Cotton Oil Co. v. Baccus, 207 Ala. 75, 92 So. 4 (1921).

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

SELLERS, Justice. FN1. Retired Associate Justice Glenn Murdock was appointed on October 23, 2018, to serve as a Special Justice in regard to this petition for a writ of mandamus. See § 12-2-14, Ala. Code 1975.

Bolin, Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur. Murdock, Special Justice,1 concurs specially. Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, and Stewart, JJ., dissent. Wise, J., recuses herself.