Waiver of Venue Objections Under Rule 12(h)(1) Overrides AMLA Venue Provisions

Introduction

In Ex parte Andrew J. Scarborough, as Administrator of the Estate of Timothy John Chumney, deceased v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., et al. (Supreme Court of Alabama, March 28, 2025), the Alabama Supreme Court resolved a long-running venue dispute in a medical-liability case. Over four years after the suit began in Montgomery County, defendants sought to transfer the case to Limestone County on the ground that all alleged breaches of the standard of care had occurred there. The plaintiff‐administrator countered that the defendants had waived any venue objection by failing to raise it in their initial Rule 12 motions or responsive pleadings. The central questions were:

Can a defendant invoke the venue provisions of the Alabama Medical Liability Act (AMLA), § 6-5-546, despite having omitted any venue defense in its early Rule 12 filings?
Does Rule 12(h)(1) bar a venue challenge raised only after years of litigation?

The Supreme Court granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to vacate its transfer order. In so doing, it reaffirmed that the waiver provisions of Rule 12 are binding—even in AMLA cases—and clarified the limited scope of AMLA’s mandatory venue sentences.

Summary of the Judgment

Plaintiff Timothy Chumney, while serving a prison sentence, suffered a mental-health crisis and ultimately committed suicide at Limestone Correctional Facility. His administrator filed suit in Montgomery County under the Alabama Wrongful Death Act and common-law negligence “as modified by the AMLA,” naming Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and two of its employees as defendants. Two years into litigation—after motions, amended complaints, joint continuances, and a setting for trial—the defendants sought to amend their answers and filed a motion to transfer venue to Limestone County, citing § 6-5-546’s requirement that an AMLA action be brought in the county where the breach occurred.

The Montgomery Circuit Court granted transfer. The administrator then petitioned for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the defendants had waived any venue objection under Rules 12(g) and 12(h)(1). The Alabama Supreme Court agreed. Applying Rule 12(h)(1)(A), it held that the venue defense was omitted from the defendants’ initial Rule 12(b) motions and thus barred from later assertion. It further explained that the third sentence of § 6-5-546 applies only when a plaintiff initially alleges breaches in multiple counties—a circumstance not present here—leaving the general Rule 12 waiver rules controlling. Accordingly, the Court granted the petition and ordered the trial court to vacate its transfer order.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Ex parte Pratt, 815 So. 2d 532 (Ala. 2001): Venue is fixed at commencement of the action.
Ex parte Seriana, 285 So. 3d 747 (Ala. 2019): A venue motion filed after waiver under Rule 12(h)(1) exceeds the trial court’s discretion.
Ex parte Harper, 934 So. 2d 1045 (Ala. 2006): Waiver of venue defense precludes later challenge.
Ex parte Children’s Hosp. of Ala., 931 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 2005) and 721 So. 2d 184 (Ala. 1998): AMLA’s third-sentence venue mandate is “mandatory” but applies only in multi-county breach allegations.
Ex parte Premier Plastic Surgery, P.C., 372 So. 3d 195 (Ala. 2022): Clarified that § 6-5-546’s third sentence applies only when the plaintiff initially alleges breaches in more than one county; otherwise, Rule 12 controls.
Ex parte Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., 321 So. 3d 682 (Ala. 2020): Standards for mandamus relief.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning turned on two pillars:

Waiver Under Rule 12(h)(1)(A): Rule 12(g) requires that all available defenses under Rule 12 be consolidated in an initial motion. The defendants’ first appearance was a Rule 12(b)(6) motion attacking the survivability of a common-law negligence claim; they did not challenge venue. Having omitted the venue defense from that motion, they were barred by Rule 12(h)(1)(A) from raising it thereafter.
Inapplicability of § 6-5-546’s Third Sentence: The AMLA’s third sentence mandates transfer “[i]f at any time prior to the commencement of the trial … it is shown that … [all breaches] occurred in only one county,” provided the plaintiff initially alleged breaches in multiple counties. Here, Scarborough never alleged multi-county breaches. As Premier Plastic Surgery held, that third sentence does not apply; instead, the general timing and waiver rules of Rule 12(h)(1) govern.

Finding no other adequate remedy and a clear right to relief, the Court granted mandamus and ordered the trial court to vacate its transfer order.

Impact

This decision reinforces the primacy of procedural rules in civil litigation—even where statutory venue provisions appear mandatory. Key takeaways include:

Litigants must assert venue objections at the outset. An initial Rule 12 motion or a venue-specific denial in the first responsive pleading is essential.
AMLA’s mandatory-venue language (third sentence of § 6-5-546) is narrow: it applies only to suits that originally allege breaches in more than one county.
Trial courts must follow Rule 12’s waiver provisions before applying statutory venue rules, protecting the finality and predictability of venue rulings.
Future defendants in AMLA cases cannot preserve a belated venue challenge via § 6-5-546 once they have waived it under Rule 12.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of Mandamus: An extraordinary remedy compelling a trial court to perform a mandatory duty when there is no adequate alternative remedy.
Rule 12(b) vs. Rule 12(h): Rule 12(b) motions raise defenses early; Rule 12(h)(1) provides that certain defenses—including improper venue—are waived if not raised in those motions or first responsive pleadings.
AMLA Venue Statute (§ 6-5-546): Requires medical-liability suits “be brought in the county wherein the breach occurred.” Its first sentence fixes venue; its third sentence clarifies transfer if multi-county allegations collapse into one.
Consolidation Requirement (Rule 12(g)): A party cannot file sequential Rule 12 motions raising different defenses; it must include all available defenses in the first motion.

Conclusion

Ex parte Scarborough v. Wexford Health Sources clarifies that procedural waiver rules cannot be circumvented by statutory venue provisions in the Alabama Medical Liability Act. Defendants who omit venue defenses from their initial Rule 12 filings forfeit the right to challenge venue later, even if the statute appears to mandate transfer. By granting mandamus relief, the Alabama Supreme Court has reaffirmed the fundamental principle that venue objections must be timely and that Rule 12’s waiver provisions preserve certainty and finality in litigation. Going forward, both plaintiffs and defendants in AMLA actions must be vigilant: venue must be correctly pled and promptly defended at the outset or be deemed waived.