Preview:

R e l : 04/27/2012

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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 .

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012

1100063

George Bates and David Joyner v. Donald W. Stewart, i n d i v i d u a l l y and as t r u s t e e o f the Abernathy T r u s t , and the Abernathy T r u s t Foundation Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t (CV-10-900165) Court

1101452

Ex p a r t e Donald W. Stewart, Donald W. Stewart, P.C., and Kasowitz, Benson, T o r r e s & Friedman LLP PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(In r e :

Sabrina Abernathy e t a l . v.

Monsanto Company e t a l . ) (Etowah C i r c u i t Court, CV-01-832)

1101456

Donald W.

Stewart, Donald W.

Stewart, P.C., LLP

and Kasowitz,

Benson, Torres & Friedman v.

Sabrina Abernathy e t a l . Appeal from Etowah C i r c u i t Court (CV-01-832) MAIN, Justice.

These t h r e e a p p e l l a t e p r o c e e d i n g s have been c o n s o l i d a t e d for the purposes first of w r i t i n g (case one o p i n i o n . no. The a c t i o n u n d e r l y i n g was filed i n the and

appeal

CV-10-900165)

Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t David Joyner trustee of

on A p r i l 1 5 , 2 0 1 0 , b y G e o r g e B a t e s W. Stewart, and individually the Abernathy

against Donald the Abernathy

a n d as Trust In

trust,

Foundation

( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e F o u n d a t i o n " ) .

a p p e a l no. 1100063, B a t e s and J o y n e r a p p e a l f r o m a j u d g m e n t o f the Etowah C i r c u i t Court d i s m i s s i n g 2 their complaint against

1 1 0 0 0 6 3 ; 1 1 0 1 4 5 2 ; 1101456 Stewart and the Foundation. The underlying action." case will

h e r e i n a f t e r be r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e f i r s t

The a c t i o n u n d e r l y i n g a p p e a l no. 1101456 was f i l e d i n t h e E t o w a h C i r c u i t C o u r t on J a n u a r y F. Davidson, Adams and R o o s e v e l t Boyd plaintiffs"), who 20, 2 0 1 1 , b y L i n d y Adams, E d (hereinafter filed what referred t o as a

"the

they

entitled

"motion

t o i n t e r v e n e as p l a i n t i f f s

a n d f o r an a c c o u n t i n g a n d

other r e l i e f " and Kasowitz,

f r o m D o n a l d W. S t e w a r t , D o n a l d W. S t e w a r t , P.C., Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP (hereinafter

r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " S t e w a r t a n d K a s o w i t z " ) ( c a s e no. CV-01-832) . long-standing corporation, The Adams p l a i n t i f f s action and a against spin-off filed their motion in a

Monsanto

Company, i t s p a r e n t In appeal no.

corporation. appeal from

1101456, S t e w a r t

and K a s o w i t z

o r d e r s e n t e r e d by

t h e t r i a l c o u r t on A u g u s t 22 a n d S e p t e m b e r 9, 2 0 1 1 , p u r p o r t i n g to The reopen a final judgment i n t h a t a c t i o n entered i n 2003.

a c t i o n u n d e r l y i n g a p p e a l no. 1101456 w i l l action." have also filed

h e r e i n a f t e r be

r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e s e c o n d Stewart and K a s o w i t z

a petition

fora court 22 a n d

w r i t o f mandamus a s k i n g t h i s C o u r t t o r e q u i r e t h e t r i a l in t h e second action t o vacate i t s orders of August

S e p t e m b e r 9 (no. 1 1 0 1 4 5 2 ) .

This proceeding w i l l 3

hereinafter

1100063; 1101452;

1101456 As t o t h e a p p e a l i n part, and

be r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n . " in the f i r s t a c t i o n , we a f f i r m i n p a r t ,

reverse

remand.

As t o t h e a p p e a l i n t h e s e c o n d a c t i o n , we d i s m i s s t h e As t o t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n , we grant the

a p p e a l as moot. petition

i n p a r t , deny i t i n p a r t , I.

and i s s u e t h e w r i t . History in a line Monsanto and a

F a c t u a l B a c k g r o u n d and P r o c e d u r a l

These a p p e l l a t e p r o c e e d i n g s a r e t h e most r e c e n t of cases a r i s i n g out o f a t o x i c - t o r t a c t i o n a g a i n s t Company; i t s p a r e n t c o r p o r a t i o n ,

Pharmacia Corporation;

spin-off corporation, S o l u t i a , Inc. (hereinafter collectively corporations biphenyls as " t h e M o n s a n t o manufactured and corporations"). disposed from of 1935

referred to The Monsanto

polychlorinated to 1971. The

("PCBs")

i n Anniston

m a n u f a c t u r e and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t o x i c s u b s t a n c e s s u c h as PCBs were b a n n e d i n t h e U n i t e d 2605(e). In 1996, States Long, i n 1976. Sr., See 15 U.S.C.

Download 1100063.pdf

Alabama Law