Rel: September 6, 2024
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 SPECIAL TERM, 2024 _________________________
SC-2023-0723 _________________________
Ex parte Baldwin County Sewer Service, LLC
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re: The Gardens at Glenlakes Property Owners Association, Inc., et al.
v.
Baldwin County Sewer Service, LLC)
(Baldwin Circuit Court: CV-14-900044.80)
BRYAN, Justice.
In 2014, certain homeowners' associations sued Baldwin County
Sewer Service, LLC ("BCSS"), challenging a rate increase they said was SC-2023-0723
limited by the terms of a private contract. BCSS has repeatedly
questioned whether the plaintiffs are successors in interest to a party to
that contract. Most recently, the Baldwin Circuit Court entered an order
denying BCSS's motion for a summary judgment on the issue for the
third time. BCSS now petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus
directing the circuit court to vacate that order and to enter a summary
judgment in its favor. For the reasons explained below, we deny the
petition.
Background
This is the fifth time that the parties have brought their dispute
before this Court. The facts are stated in our first opinion, Gardens at
Glenlakes Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Baldwin County Sewer
Service, LLC, 225 So. 3d 47 (2016) (plurality opinion). In sum, a 1991
agreement between a real-estate developer and BCSS set terms for BCSS
to provide sewer and wastewater services to certain property in Baldwin
County. In 2014, The Gardens at Glenlakes Property Owners
Association, Inc.; Lake View Villas Association, Inc.; Lake View Estates
Property Owners Association, Inc.; Glenlakes Unit One Property Owners
Association, Inc.; and Glenlakes Master Association, Inc. ("the
2 SC-2023-0723
Associations") sued BCSS in the circuit court, asserting that a BCSS rate
increase violated the terms of the 1991 agreement ("the 2014 action").
They stated various claims and sought a declaratory judgment and
specific performance of the 1991 agreement. Glenlakes Golf Club, Inc.
("the Golf Club"), intervened as a plaintiff.
The circuit court entered a summary judgment on the ground that
the Associations and the Golf Club lacked standing to enforce the 1991
agreement. The plaintiffs appealed. In 2016, this Court reversed the
circuit court's judgment and remanded the 2014 action for further
proceedings. Id. at 56. The question whether the Associations and the
Golf Club had authority to enforce the 1991 agreement, we reasoned, did
not implicate the subject-matter jurisdiction of the circuit court.
This Court had already limited the concept of standing, as
necessary to invoke subject-matter jurisdiction, to application in "public-
law" cases. Id. at 51-53 (citing Wyeth, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield
of Alabama, 42 So. 3d 1216 (Ala. 2010), and Ex parte BAC Home Loans
Servicing, LP, 159 So. 3d 31 (Ala. 2013)). Applying the reasoning of the
decisions in Wyeth and Ex parte BAC, this Court explained:
"In this case, the question whether the Associations may properly assert the claims of their individual members is, in 3 SC-2023-0723
fact, a real-party-in-interest inquiry. This question is distinct from the question of standing: It does not implicate the subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court, and the trial court can address the issue, if properly raised, by applying Rule 17(a), Ala. R. Civ. P. See Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So. 2d [1025,] 1027 [(Ala. 1999)] (' " ' [ T]he real party in interest principle is a means to identify the person who possesses the right sought to be enforced.' " ' (quoting Dennis v. Magic City Dodge, Inc., 524 So. 2d 616, 618 (Ala. 1988), quoting in turn 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1542 (1971))). Likewise, if, as BCSS argues, the 1991 agreement does not govern sewer rates charged to the Golf Club, then the Golf Club simply will not be entitled to relief under that contract. As we concluded in BAC:
" 'If in the end the facts do not support the plaintiffs, or the law does not do so, so be it -- but this does not mean the plaintiffs cannot come into court and allege, and attempt to prove, otherwise. If they fail in this endeavor, it is not that they have a "standing" problem; it is … that they have a "cause of action" problem, or more precisely in these cases, a "failure to prove one's cause of action" problem. The trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction to "hear" such "problems" -- and the cases in which they arise.'
"159 So. 3d at 46. The Associations and the Golf Club in this case may have a 'cause of action' problem; they may have a 'real-party-in-interest' problem -- we do not, of course, mean to suggest an answer.4 There is, however, no 'standing' problem. Accordingly, the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment based on the Associations' and the Golf Club's purported lack of standing.
"___________________
4 SC-2023-0723
"4Nor do we express any opinion as to whether the Associations, the Golf Club, or any individual homeowner in Lake View Estates has a right to enforce the 1991 agreement."
225 So. 3d at 53.
This Court did not, as BCSS now asserts, remand the 2014 action
to the circuit court "to determine whether the [plaintiffs] were real
parties in interest and had a cause of action under the Sewer Agreement."
Petition at 1-2 (emphasis omitted). In fact, the opinion ordered a general
remand for further proceedings.
On remand, BCSS has treated the real-party-in-interest question
as if it carries the same jurisdictional and gatekeeping functions as the
standing doctrine. This has caused a significant waste of time and
resources of the parties, the circuit court, and this Court. Indeed, in eight
years, despite discovery, multiple nonfinal rulings, and three additional
appellate proceedings, the litigation has not proceeded beyond this one
question.
In January 2017, individual members of one of the Associations
commenced a new action ("the 2017 action") challenging the rate increase
and seeking class certification. The 2017 action was consolidated with
the 2014 action in 2020, but not before coming to this Court twice. See
5 SC-2023-0723
Ex parte Baldwin Cnty. Sewer Serv., LLC (No. 1170462, Mar. 28, 2018)
(denying, without an opinion, mandamus petition based on applicability
of § 6-5-440, Ala. Code 1975); and Gormley v. Baldwin Cnty. Sewer Serv.,
LLC (No. 1180741, Mar. 13, 2020), 325 So. 3d 1241 (Ala. 2020) (table)
(affirming, without an opinion, order denying class certification).
On remand in the 2014 action, before the cases were consolidated,
BCSS moved for a summary judgment, arguing that the Associations
were not real parties in interest and could not timely substitute or join
other parties under Rule 17, Ala. R. Civ. P. The trial court denied that
motion in October 2017.
"In October 2020, after the actions had been consolidated, the Associations moved for a partial summary judgment on the real-party-in-interest issue, asserting that BCSS had been unwilling to participate in previously ordered mediation because of its continuing belief that the Associations were not real parties in interest."
Baldwin Cnty. Sewer Serv., LLC v. Garden at Glenlakes Prop. Owners
Ass'n, Inc., 358 So. 3d 697, 700 (Ala. 2022). In response, BCSS referenced
the argument in its summary-judgment motion that had been denied in
October 2017 and again urged that no named plaintiff was a real party
in interest.
6 SC-2023-0723
"[T]he trial court entered an order determining that the
Associations and the individual plaintiffs are the real parties in interest
in the consolidated actions." Id. It certified its order as final under Rule
54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., and BCSS appealed. The order, however, was not
appropriate for Rule 54(b) certification because it did not resolve an
entire claim or enter judgment as to any party. Id. at 701. This Court
thus dismissed the appeal as arising from a nonfinal order. Id.
In October 2022, an amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated actions that 1) narrowed the claims to allege one count of
breach of contract, 2) voluntarily dismissed the individual plaintiffs, 3)
ensured that the Golf Club was named as a plaintiff, because it had been
inadvertently left off certain orders, 4) voluntarily dismissed one
association -- Glenlakes Master Association, Inc. -- that had existed to
hold undeveloped property, and 5) added another association --
Carnoustie Gardens Homeowners Association -- that had been created to
control the now-developed property formerly held by the dismissed
association (hereinafter, when referring to "the Associations," this Court
intends to include Carnoustie Gardens Homeowners Association but not
Glenlakes Master Association, Inc.). In May 2023, BCSS again moved
7 SC-2023-0723
for a summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs were not real
parties in interest.
BCSS thus presented the question to the circuit court for the third
time after this Court's original remand in 2016. Consistent with its 2017
denial of a summary judgment on the issue and its 2020 order finding
that the Associations were real parties in interest, the circuit court
denied BCSS's motion on August 22, 2023. BCSS then filed its present
petition for a writ of mandamus. We ordered an answer and briefs.
Standard of Review
"A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the petitioner can demonstrate: ' " (1) a clear legal right to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack o f another a dequate remedy; and (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of the court." ' Ex parte Nall, 879 So. 2d 541, 543 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Ex parte BOC Grp., Inc., 823 So. 2d 1270, 1272 (Ala. 2001))."
Ex parte 4tdd.com, Inc., 306 So. 3d 8, 13 (Ala. 2020).
" ' "Subject to certain narrow exceptions ..., we have held that, because an 'adequate remedy' exists by way of an appeal, the denial of a motion to dismiss or a motion for a summary judgment is not reviewable by petition for writ of mandamus." Ex parte Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 825 So. 2d 758, 761-62 (Ala. 2002).'
8 SC-2023-0723
"Ex parte Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P., 78 So. 3d 959, 965-66 (Ala. 2011). Among those exceptions is when the petitioner challenges the subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court, Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So. 2d 288, 292 (Ala. 2007) …."
Ex parte Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 279 So. 3d 1135, 1140 (Ala. 2018).
Analysis
In its petition, BCSS divides its argument into six parts, generally
summarizing the issues presented as follows:
"First, is any [p]laintiff a real party in interest so that the [p]laintiff is a proper party to bring the action? Second, if a proper [p]laintiff, can the [p]laintiff prove every element of the cause of action? If not, then [the p]laintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."
Petition at 13-14. Specifically, BCSS urges that no plaintiff is a proper
party, that the plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the elements of a breach-
of-contract claim because they are not parties to the 1991 agreement, that
the plaintiffs have not proved damages, that the Associations lack the
representative capacity to sue on behalf of their members, and that the
claim of one of the Associations is time-barred. On these grounds, BCSS
argues that is has a "clear, legal right to the dismissal of the [a]mended
[c]omplaint …." Petition at 11.
9 SC-2023-0723
BCSS's petition only casually addresses whether filing a petition
for the writ of mandamus is the appropriate procedure for obtaining
review in this case. BCSS cites two decisions holding that filing a
mandamus petition is appropriate for seeking review of determinations
regarding the applicability of § 6-5-440, Ala. Code 1975 (prohibiting
simultaneous actions for the same cause against the same party). See Ex
parte Boys & Girls Clubs of S. Alabama, Inc., 163 So. 3d 1007 (2014); Ex
parte J.E. Estes Wood Co., 42 So. 3d 104 (2010). That statute, however,
has no application to the present petition. BCSS also cites a decision
holding that filing a mandamus petition is the proper method for seeking
review of the denial of a motion for a change of venue. Ex parte Hibbett
Sporting Goods, Inc., 228 So. 3d 1008 (2017). Again, that holding has no
application to BCSS's petition.
Insofar as BCSS argues that the amended complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6), Ala R. Civ.
P., that issue is not reviewable by a petition for a writ of mandamus. See
Ex parte Nautilus Ins. Co., 260 So. 3d 823, 831 (Ala. 2018) ("[T]he denial
of a motion to dismiss based upon Rule 12(b)(6) is not reviewable by
petition for a writ of mandamus. Ex part e Kohlberg Kravis Roberts &
10 SC-2023-0723
Co., L.P., 78 So. 3d 959 (Ala. 2011). 'Any alleged error ... can be
adequately remedied by appeal.' 78 So. 3d at 979."). Moreover, BCSS
has failed to demonstrate that mandamus relief is appropriate regarding
its statute-of-limitations argument. See Ex parte Hodge, 153 So. 3d 734,
749 (Ala. 2014) ("[T]his Court has stated that the applicability of a
statute-of-limitations defense is not a proper basis for issuing a writ of
mandamus, because of the availability of a remedy by appeal."). BCSS
has also cited no authority to support the notion that this Court will
review a trial court's order denying a summary-judgment motion
challenging whether the plaintiff is a real party in interest via a petition
for a writ of mandamus.
"The burden rests on the petitioner to demonstrate that its petition
presents such an exceptional case -- that is, one in which an appeal is not
an adequate remedy." Ex parte Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 879 So. 2d
1134, 1137 (Ala. 2003).
" ' "When an appellant [or petitioner] fails to properly argue an issue, that issue is waived and will not be considered." "An appeals court will consider only those issues properly delineated as such, and no matter will be considered on appeal [or mandamus review] unless presented and argued in brief." ' Tucker v. Cullman-Jefferson Counties Gas Dist., 864 So. 2d 317, 319 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Asam v. Devereaux, 686 So. 2d
11 SC-2023-0723
1222, 1224 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996), and Braxton v. Stewart, 539 So. 2d 284, 286 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988), respectively (emphasis omitted)). ' "It is well established that it is not the function of an appellate court to create, research, or argue an issue on behalf of the [petitioner]." ' Mottershaw v. Ledbetter, 148 So. 3d 45, 54 (Ala. 2013) (quoting Gonzalez v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama, 760 So. 2d 878, 883 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000)). A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary writ that will be issued only when the petitioner establishes a 'clear legal right' to relief. Ex parte Davis, 930 So. 2d [497,] 499 [(Ala. 2005)]."
Ex parte Drury Hotels Co., 303 So. 3d 1188, 1193 (Ala. 2020). BCSS has
failed to demonstrate that an appeal from a final judgment of the circuit
court would not be an adequate remedy for review of the circuit court's
determination regarding whether the plaintiffs are real parties in
interest and that BCSS has a clear legal right to relief on those grounds.
The plaintiffs "concede[] that the Alabama Supreme Court has held
that mandamus petitions are proper to review issues of whether a party
is a real party in interest." Answer at 12-13. However, this Court's
precedent regarding whether a trial court's denial of a defendant's
summary-judgment motion challenging a plaintiff's status as a real party
in interest may be reviewed by this Court via a petition for the writ of
mandamus is not so clear.
12 SC-2023-0723
The decisions that the plaintiffs cite in support of that assertion did
not hold that this Court will generally review the denial of a summary-
judgment motion challenging whether a plaintiff is a real party in
interest. Instead, each decision addressed the substitution or addition of
parties -- procedural issues that are not presented in BCSS's petition.
One of the cases cited by the plaintiffs, Ex parte Jackson Hospital &
Clinic, Inc., 167 So. 3d 324, 329 n.1 (Ala. 2014), also addressed the other
three decisions, stating:
"Although this Court granted both the … defendants' petition and [the plaintiff]'s petition to file permissive appeals pursuant to Rule 5, [Ala. R. App. P.,] upon further examination it is apparent that a petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate means by which to seek review of the issues they raise -- whether [a bankruptcy trustee] timely moved to substitute himself as the real party in interest and whether [the plaintiff] should be allowed to proceed as the real party in interest regardless of her bankruptcy filing and initial failure to disclose her claim in those bankruptcy proceedings. See Ex parte U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 148 So. 3d 1060, 1064 (Ala. 2014) (listing issues this Court has held to be appropriate for mandamus review); Ex parte Tyson Foods, Inc., 146 So. 3d 1041 (Ala. 2013) (reviewing, on petition for writ of mandamus, the trial court's ruling on a motion seeking to add a real party in interest); and Ex parte Chemical Lime of Alabama, Inc., 916 So. 2d 594, 596- 97 (Ala. 2005) (considering, on petition for writ of mandamus, whether plaintiffs had timely moved to substitute defendant for a fictitiously named defendant)."
13 SC-2023-0723
After this Court issued the decisions cited by the plaintiffs, this
Court, in Ex parte 4tdd.com, 306 So. 3d at 16-17, reviewed a petition for
the writ of mandamus filed in a shareholder-derivative suit, in which the
defendant challenged the plaintiff's compliance with Rule 23.1, Ala. R.
Civ. P., stating:
"This Court has held that a mandamus petition is the proper method by which to review the issue whether a party should be allowed to proceed as the real party in interest, albeit in the context of issues arising from the trial court's determination pursuant to Rule 17, Ala. R. Civ. P."
The Ex parte 4ttd.com Court cited the same four decisions cited by
the plaintiffs in this case. As explained above, however, those decisions
involved the substitution or addition of parties and did not hold that this
Court generally reviews denials of summary-judgment motions based on
real-party-in-interest grounds via petitions for the writ of mandamus. In
reviewing this Court's precedent on the question, the Court of Civil
Appeals has reached the same conclusion. See Ex parte Bonds, 218 So.
3d 867, 870 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (considering this Court's decisions in Ex
parte Jackson Hospital & Clinic, supra, and Ex parte Tyson F oods, Inc.,
146 So. 3d 1041 (Ala. 2013), and reasoning: "[N]either [case] involved the
review of the denial of a motion for a summary judgment based on … the
14 SC-2023-0723
real-party-in-interest doctrine and Rule 17. Thus, we cannot agree that
either of those cases stand for the proposition that the denial of a
summary-judgment motion based on an argument that a party is not a
real party in interest … is excepted from the general rule that the denial
of a summary-judgment motion is not reviewable by a petition for the
writ of mandamus.").
We also note that this Court's determination in Ex parte 4tdd.com
was heavily tied to the pleading requirements of Rule 23.1, which has no
application to BCSS's petition. See Ex parte Hood, [Ms. SC-2023-0806,
Mar. 29, 2024] ____ So. 3d ____, ____ (Ala. 2024) (citing Ex parte
4tdd.com, for the proposition that "[m]andamus review is the proper
method by which to review whether a party has satisfied the pleading
requirements for a derivative claim").
In a decision released only a few months after Ex parte 4tdd.com,
Ex parte Bashinsky, 319 So. 3d 1240, 1253-54 (Ala. 2020), this Court
reasoned that it was "doubtful" whether the real-party-in-interest
question was appropriate for review by way of a mandamus petition.
"We first note, as we have done on many occasions, that 'the concept of standing was developed " 'for public law' cases, ... not 'private law' cases," and thus [we have] removed the gate-keeping function of standing from private-law cases.' Ex 15 SC-2023-0723
parte Wilcox Cty. Bd. of Educ., 218 So. 3d 774, 779 n.7 (Ala. 2016) (quoting Ex parte BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 159 So. 3d 31, 44 (Ala. 2013)). Thus, the alleged error about which Ms. Bashinsky complains -- whether McKleroy and Townsend are proper parties to file a petition for guardianship and conservatorship under the Alabama Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act, § 26-2A-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 ('the AUGPPA') -- does not implicate standing but is rather more akin to a real-party-in-interest issue. See Dennis v. Magic City Dodge, Inc., 524 So. 2d 616, 618 (Ala. 1988) (explaining that ' "the real party in interest principle is a means to identify the person who possesses the right sought to be enforced" ' (quoting 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1542 (1971))). Consequently, it is doubtful that this issue is susceptible to mandamus review. Compare Ex parte Sterilite Corp. of Alabama, 837 So. 2d 815, 818 (Ala. 2002) (declining to consider the argument that plaintiff is not a real party in interest as a basis for mandamus relief when the petitioner had confined its arguments to standing), with Ex parte 4tdd.com, Inc., 306 So. 3d 8, 16-17 (Ala. 2020) (noting that '[t]his Court has held that a mandamus petition is the proper method by which to review the issue whether a party should be allowed to proceed as the real party in interest, albeit in the context of issues arising from the trial court's determination pursuant to Rule 17, Ala. R. Civ. P.')."
(Emphasis added.)
BCSS's apparent confusion regarding the function of a real-party-
in-interest issue has caused a significant waste of judicial resources in
this case. During the eight years of litigation on remand from our
original 2016 decision, BCSS seems to have proceeded on the assumption
that it may seek a dismissal on this question and have immediate 16 SC-2023-0723
mandamus review by this Court of a decision by the circuit court not to
dispose of the case on this ground. Thus, BCSS has -- for years now --
treated the real-party-in-interest question as if it carries gatekeeping
implications similar to the standing doctrine raised in the first appeal in
this case rather than as a factual, cause-of-action question to be resolved
through a final judgment. The plaintiffs have asserted that BCSS even
refused to participate in court-ordered mediation based on this
assumption.
To settle the matter for BCSS, and for future litigants, we now
clarify that the real-party-in-interest question, which formerly was often
raised by defendants in private-law cases as a challenge to plaintiffs'
standing, does not have the same gatekeeping function as the standing
doctrine. Resolution of the real-party-in-interest question is a factual
determination related to whether the plaintiffs have satisfied the
requirements of their cause of action and is appropriate for resolution by
the trial court in a final judgment.
As this Court discussed in its first opinion in this case, the "concept
of standing implicates a court's subject-matter jurisdiction." Gardens at
Glenlakes, 225 So. 3d at 51-52 (citing State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow
17 SC-2023-0723
Drive, 740 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (Ala. 1999)). However, " '[o]ur courts too
often have fallen into the trap of treating as an issue of "standing" that
which is merely a failure to state a cognizable cause of action or legal
theory, or a failure to satisfy the injury element of a cause of action.' " Id.
at 52 (quoting Wyeth, 42 So. 3d at 1219) (emphasis omitted).
In Ex parte Simpson, 36 So. 3d 15, 24 (Ala. 2009), this Court
concluded that the petitioners' "argument [in that case had] confuse[d]
the standing issue with the issue whether [the plaintiff wa]s the real
party in interest." After discussing the distinction between the standing
principle and the real-party-in-interest principle, the Ex parte Simpson
Court stated:
"Although this Court is duty-bound to notice and address the absence of standing and hence subject-matter jurisdiction ex mero motu, Cadle Co. v. Shabani, 4 So. 3d 460, 462 (Ala. 2008), it is not so bound when the issue is whether the action is being prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. See Ex parte Sterilite, 837 So. 2d [815,] 819 [(Ala. 2002)]."
Id. at 25. Noting that "no argument ha[d] been made in th[at] case
regarding who [wa]s the real party in interest," the Ex parte Simpson
Court declined to grant mandamus relief. Id.
In Ex parte BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 159 So. 3d 31, 44 (Ala.
2013), this Court limited application of the standing doctrine to " 'public 18 SC-2023-0723
law' cases." That opinion explained why the doctrine is necessary in such
cases:
"In the absence of defined elements as exist in established private causes of action, the concept of standing is used to differentiate between those complaints regarding governmental action that are shared generally by the citizenry and that therefore must be addressed politically and those complaints that reflect a sufficient specific injury and consequent adverseness to make for a 'case' that is within the purview of the judicial branch."
Id.
For " 'private law' cases," however, the elements of the cause of
action supply the necessary adversariness to invoke the subject-matter
jurisdiction of the trial court. The nature of the question, therefore, is
not whether the trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction, but whether
the plaintiffs can satisfy the elements of their claim to show that they are
entitled to relief.
"Accordingly, the concept appears to have no necessary role to play in respect to private-law actions, which, unlike public- law cases …, come with established elements that define an adversarial relationship and 'controversy' sufficient to justify judicial intervention. In private-law actions …, if the elements are met, the plaintiff is entitled to judicial intervention; if they are not met, then the plaintiff is not entitled to judicial intervention. Everything necessary to justify judicial intervention, by definition, inheres in those elements that we say constitute a 'cause of action' in and by our courts. What need is there to distill from those elements and label some 19 SC-2023-0723
additional gate-keeping notion? At a very fundamental level, the concept of standing is already embodied in the various elements prescribed, including the common requirement of proof of a sufficient existing or threatened injury."
Resolution of factual disputes about whether the plaintiffs have
satisfied the elements of their cause of action and are real parties in
interest entitled to relief is the precise function of the trial court. As this
Court explained in Wyeth:
"The courts of this State exist for the very purpose of performing such tasks as sorting out what constitutes a cognizable cause of action, what are the elements of a cause of action, and whether the allegations of a given complaint meet those elements. Such tasks lie at the core of the judicial function. See generally, e.g., Art. VI, § 139(a), Ala. Const. 1901 (vesting 'the judicial power of the state' in this Court and lower courts of the State); Art. VI, § 142, Ala. Const. 1901 (providing that the circuit courts of this State 'shall exercise general jurisdiction in all cases except as may otherwise be provided by law'). Trial courts and appellate courts routinely undertake to determine whether there is a 'provable set of facts, upon [a] cognizable theory of law.' Anderson v. Clark, 775 So. 2d 749, 750 (Ala. 1999)."
42 So. 3d at 1220-21. "If in the end the facts do not support the plaintiffs,
or the law does not do so, so be it -- but this does not mean the plaintiffs
cannot come into court and allege, and attempt to prove, otherwise." Ex
parte BAC, 159 So. 3d at 46.
20 SC-2023-0723
The nature of the real-party-in-interest question requires a factual
resolution by the trial court that is squarely within its judicial function.
Therefore, that issue does not implicate the subject-matter jurisdiction of
the trial court. Consequently, a trial court's denial of a defendant's
summary-judgment motion challenging a plaintiff's status as a real party
in interest does not fall within the subject-matter-jurisdiction exception
to the general prohibition against mandamus review of denials of
summary-judgment motions.
Moreover, in light of the foregoing history, we conclude that a
general rule allowing mandamus review of a trial court's denial of a
summary-judgment motion challenging a plaintiff's status as a real party
in interest would largely revive the gatekeeping function of the standing
doctrine for private-law cases. In Ex parte U.S. Bank National
Association, 148 So. 3d 1060 (Ala. 2014), released a few months after this
Court's decision in Ex parte BAC, the Court listed certain issues that we
had held were appropriate for mandamus review. Each decision
permitting mandamus review reflected on the list involved either some
challenge to the authority of the trial court to hear the case (e.g., subject-
matter jurisdiction or immunity), or some procedural issue for which
21 SC-2023-0723
review by appeal would be inadequate because proceeding to a final
judgment without resolving the question would be a significant waste of
judicial resources (e.g., class certification or change of venue).
"This 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); standing as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So. 2d 288 (Ala. 2007); nonjusticiability as a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, Ex parte Valloze, 142 So. 3d 504 (Ala. 2013); personal jurisdiction, Ex parte Duck Boo Int'l Co., 985 So. 2d 900 (Ala. 2007); immunity, Ex parte Butts, 775 So. 2d 173 (Ala. 2000); failure to exercise due diligence in identifying, before expiration of the statute of limitations, a fictitiously named defendant as the party to be sued, Ex parte Chemical Lime of Alabama, Inc., 916 So. 2d 594 (Ala. 2005); 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); a denial of a motion to dismiss where the doctrine of forum non conveniens is applicable, Ex parte Kia Motors America, Inc., 881 So. 2d 396 (Ala. 2003); a refusal to enforce an outbound forum-selection clause when the issue is presented in a motion to dismiss, Ex parte Bad Toys Holdings, Inc., 958 So. 2d 852 (Ala. 2006); class certification, Ex parte Caremark RX, Inc., 956 So. 2d 1117 (Ala. 2006); a motion to dismiss an action based on abatement, Ex parte J.E. Estes Wood Co., 42 So. 3d 104 (Ala. 2010); the grant of a motion adding a real party in interest, Ex parte Tyson Foods, Inc., 146 So. 3d 1041 (Ala. 2013); the availability of a jury trial, Ex parte BancorpSouth Bank, 109 So. 3d 163 (Ala. 2012); a ruling on a motion to dismiss a counterclaim that was a compulsory counterclaim in a previous action, Ex parte Cincinnati Ins. Co., 806 So. 2d 376 (Ala. 2001); rulings on discovery motions where a privilege is disregarded, when discovery orders the production of patently irrelevant or duplicative documents 22 SC-2023-0723
such as to clearly constitute harassment or impose a burden on the producing party far out of proportion to any benefit that may be obtained by the requesting party, when the court imposes a sanction effectively precluding a decision on the merits or denies discovery going to a party's entire action or defense so that the outcome is all but determined and the petitioner would merely be going through the motions of a trial to obtain an appeal, or when the trial court impermissibly prevents the petitioner from making a record on the discovery issue so that the appellate court cannot review the effect of the trial court's alleged error, Ex parte Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 872 So. 2d 810 (Ala. 2003); denial of a motion objecting to the appointment of a special master, Ex parte Alabama State Pers. Bd., 54 So. 3d 886 (Ala. 2010); grant of a motion to set aside previous supersedeas bond amount, Ex parte Mohabbat, 93 So. 3d 79 (Ala. 2012); indefinite stay of an action, Ex parte American Family Care, Inc., 91 So. 3d 682 (Ala. 2012); a trial court's failure to comply with an appellate court's instruction on remand, Ex parte Williford, 902 So. 2d 658 (Ala. 2004); ruling on denial of motion to admit an uncontested will to probate where a finding that the testator lacked testamentary capacity was not precluded by the appointment of a conservator, Toler v. Murray, 886 So. 2d 76 (Ala. 2004)."
148 So. 3d at 1064.
In this case, BCSS is arguing that it is entitled to a summary
judgment because, it says, the plaintiffs are not real parties in interest.
As explained above, the denial of a defendant's summary-judgment
motion challenging a plaintiff's status as a real party in interest does not
involve a question of the trial court's authority over the action. Moreover,
the denial of a defendant's summary-judgment motion generally 23 SC-2023-0723
challenging a plaintiff's status as a real party in interest that does not
involve whether a party should be substituted or added as a real party in
interest does not present the same sort of procedural issues this Court
has previously reviewed by way of a petition for the writ of mandamus.
Therefore, we conclude, an appeal from a trial court's final judgment is
generally an adequate remedy for review of the trial court's interlocutory
denial of a defendant's summary-judgment motion challenging a
plaintiff's status as a real party in interest. Thus, BCSS has not satisfied
its burden to show that review by appeal is inadequate. Mandamus relief
is inappropriate in this case.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, we conclude that the circuit
court's denial of BCSS's summary-judgment motion arguing that the
Associations and the Golf Club are not real parties in interest does not
implicate the circuit court's subject-matter jurisdiction and is not subject
to mandamus review. Moreover, as also explained above, BCSS's petition
does not present any procedural issue concerning the substitution or
addition of parties, such that mandamus review would be appropriate
under the authority of the cases cited in the plaintiffs' answer. Because
24 SC-2023-0723
the question whether the Associations and the Golf Club are real parties
in interest is not appropriate for mandamus review, we deny BCSS's
PETITION DENIED.
Shaw, Wise, Mendheim, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.
Sellers, J., concurs in the result.
Cook, J., concurs in the result, with opinion, which Parker, C.J.,
joins.
25 SC-2023-0723
COOK, Justice (concurring in the result).
Although I concur in the result, I decline to adopt the main opinion's
bright-line rule for determining when a ruling on a real-party-in-interest
issue is reviewable by way of a mandamus petition.
The main opinion concludes that filing a mandamus petition is not
a proper means of seeking review of a real-party-in-interest issue in the
context of a summary-judgment motion. However, in this case, the
respondents expressly concede that, under Alabama law, the question
whether a party is a real party in interest is reviewable by way of a
mandamus petition:
"Ordinarily, the denial of a motion for summary judgment is not reviewable by petition for a writ of mandamus, but the respondent[s] concede[] that the Alabama Supreme Court has held that mandamus petitions are proper to review issues of whether a party is a real party in interest. Ex parte U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 148 So. 3d 1060, 1064 (Ala. 2014); Ex parte Jackson Hosp. & Clinic, Inc., 167 So. 3d 324, 329 n.1 (Ala. 2014); Ex parte Tyson Foods, Inc., 146 So. 3d 1041 (Ala. 2013); Ex parte Chemical Lime of Alabama, Inc., 916 So. 2d 594, 596-97 (Ala. 2005)."
Answer at 12-13 (emphasis added). Because the parties have raised no
argument regarding this issue, I see no need for this Court to settle a
dispute that does not exist.
26 SC-2023-0723
This is especially true here because (1) our prior caselaw does not
clearly establish that the trial court's ruling in this case is not amenable
to mandamus review and (2) the petitioner has not met its burden to
show that the respondents are not the real parties in interest in this case.
Thus, although I believe that the main opinion reaches the correct result,
on the limited materials and arguments presented, I would not draw a
bright line to say that a trial court's denial of a defendant's summary-
judgment motion challenging a plaintiff's status as a real party in
interest is never reviewable by way of a mandamus petition. Accordingly,
I feel that this issue would be better addressed in a future case in which
the issue is properly presented and this Court has the benefit of
adversarial briefs and arguments.
Parker, C.J., concurs.