Ex parte Michael Grayson Brown, [Ms. 1190962, Jan. 22, 2021], ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2021). The Court (Sellers, J.; Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur; Shaw, J., concurs in the result) denies Brown’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking interlocutory review of the Lee Circuit Court’s denial of Brown’s 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Declining to expand interlocutory review of denial of motions to dismiss asserting a statute of limitations, the Court explains
This case does not involve a statute of repose, which, unlike a statute of limitations, is not subject to equitable tolling. See Pinigis v. Regions Bank, 977 So. 2d 446 (Ala. 2007). Rather, this case presents a novel issue regarding whether equitable tolling should apply when Beamon first commenced an action in a federal court that lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and then commenced an action, asserting the same claims, in state court five days after the applicable limitations period had expired. The circuit court made no ruling on that issue. Rather, it concluded that Beamon, having the burden of proof, should have the opportunity to offer evidence establishing that equitable tolling is warranted under the specific circumstances presented. Thus, this case does not fit squarely with Ex parte Hodge, [153 So. 3d 734 (Ala. 2014)] in which, from the face of the complaint, it was apparent that the defendants were entitled to the relief they sought. Accordingly, Brown has not established a clear legal right to the dismissal of the complaint filed in the circuit court pursuant to Rule12(b)(6).
Ms* 8.