Ex parte GBC International Bank, [Ms. SC-2024-0778, June 27, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). In a unanimous decision, the Court (Bryan, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, Cook, McCool, and Lewis, JJ., concur) issues a writ of mandamus directing the Jefferson Circuit Court to dismiss, for lack of personal jurisdiction, a complaint filed by Michael Straus against GBC International Bank (“GBC”), a California corporation.
Straus wired $60,000 to a bank account maintained by GBC and owned by Apex Oil and Gas Trading, LLC (“Apex”). Straus alleged that Apex failed to provide services he paid for and then “‘withdrew the funds from its account with GBC and disappeared, absconding with Straus’[s] money.’” Ms. *2. Straus sued GBC, asserting claims of negligence and wantonness alleging that GBC “‘knew that Apex was engaged in fraud or other criminal activities facilitated by GBC.’” Straus also alleged “‘[o]n its own website, GBC [had] recognize[d] its obligations under the Patriot Act to undertake such due diligence and investigation as might be needed in order to prevent exactly the kind of theft” that Apex committed.’” Ibid.
In response to GBC’s prima facie showing that it had not purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Alabama, Straus submitted an unsworn declaration asserting: “I respectfully submit that any bank that holds itself out [via its website] to a citizen of Alabama in this way must foresee being called to account in the courts of Alabama for any harm suffered in reliance on such representations.” Ms. *18.
The Court first holds “the circuit court’s order denying GBC’s motion to dismiss indicates that the circuit court considered the contents of Straus’s unsworn declaration in disposing of the motion to dismiss. Under the rationale of Ex parte Puccio, [923 So. 2d 1069, 1071 (Ala. 2005),] the circuit court could not have properly done so.” Ms. *17.
The Court also holds that even if the declaration had been properly sworn, its contents were not sufficient to overcome GBC’s showing that it was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Alabama. The Court reiterates “‘when general representations appear on a company’s website that is viewable by anyone with access to the Internet, the company cannot be said to have purposefully directed [its representations] specifically at one state.’” Ms. *19, quoting Ex parte Troncalli Chrysler Plymouth Dodge, Inc., 876 So. 2d 459, 465 (Ala. 2003), some internal citations and quotation marks omitted.