Alabama Supreme Court Appellate Alert: Decision from November 26, 2025

PDF

The Alabama Supreme Court issued its weekly release list on Wednesday, November 26, which included two opinions of interest to the Alabama business community:

• Ex parte Best Choice Roofing Alabama, LLC - A family sued a roofing company in Alabama state court for breach of contract. The roofing company filed a motion to dismiss based on an outbound forum-selection clause. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss because the forum selection clause would be seriously inconvenient to the family under the circumstances. The Alabama Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to enforce the forum-selection clause. The financial strain placed on the family by the leaky roof and the 400-mile distance to the forum in Tennessee were inconveniences, but they did not rise to the level of depriving the family of their day in court.

• Southampton 100, LLC v. Ala. Dep’t of Revenue - This case involves the limits of a trial court’s discretion to dismiss a case as a discovery sanction. After the Department of Revenue deposed one of Southampton’s two corporate representatives in person, Southampton offered DOR the opportunity to depose the second—a California resident named Mejer—via Zoom. DOR moved to compel an in-person deposition, and the trial court denied that motion. Southampton said that if the trial went forward as scheduled, Mejer would be in town and available for an in-person deposition on the first day of trial.  At DOR’s request, the trial court continued the trial. DOR then noticed Mejer’s deposition for the day the trial was previously scheduled to begin, but Mejer was no longer available that day. DOR moved to dismiss the case as a sanction for Southampton’s failure to comply with its deposition notice. The trial court dismissed the case without a hearing. In a 5-0 opinion, the Court reversed. It held that, absent evidence of willful noncompliance, the severe sanction of dismissal was inappropriate.  Although the Court did not condone Southampton’s conduct, nothing indicated that it was willfully disregarding discovery obligations. Southampton made one of its representatives available to DOR and offered DOR an opportunity to depose Mejer by Zoom. Further, the continuance of the trial date and the trial court’s denial of DOR’s motion to compel made Southampton’s discovery obligations ambiguous.  Under these circumstances, Southampton did not willfully attempt to prevent discovery, and dismissal was inappropriate. In a separate writing, Justice Cook expressed his view that trial courts should normally hold a hearing before granting a contested dispositive motion.

If you have questions about this week’s case or want to discuss other matters relating to Alabama appellate law, please do not hesitate to reach out to the attorneys below, or to another member of Maynard Nexsen’s Appellate Group.