Ex parte John Cassimus, et al.; Ex parte Carrick and McAllister, [Ms. SC-2024-0284, SC-2024-0318, SC-2024-0349, Mar. 7, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (SC-2024-0284 – Mitchell, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, Cook, and McCool, JJ., concur; Sellers, J., concurs in the result; SC-2024-0318 – Mitchell, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, Cook, and McCool, JJ., concur; Sellers, J., concurs in the result; SC-2024-0349 – Mitchell, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Mendheim, and McCool, JJ., concur; Sellers, J., concurs in the result; Bryan, J., dissents; Cook, J., dissents) denies two petitions for writs of mandamus and dismisses a third. Cassimus and his co-defendants sought mandamus review of the trial court’s denial of their motions to dismiss derivative claims asserted by Carrick and McAllister, arguing plaintiffs did not fairly and adequately represent the limited-liability companies involved in the suit. The Court holds that adequacy of representation is a factual question inappropriate for mandamus review at the pleading stage. Ms. *15, citing Ex parte Caribe Resort Condominium Ass’n Board of Directors, [Ms. SC-2023-0624, Dec. 13, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024).
Additionally, the Court dismisses as untimely the mandamus petition filed by the Cassimus defendants challenging the trial court’s appointment of a discovery special master. Ms. *27, citing Rule 21(a)(3) Ala. R. App. P., and Ex parte Troutman Sanders, LLP, 866 So. 2d 547, 550 (Ala. 2003).
Finally, the Court denies Carrick and McAllister’s petition challenging the dismissal of their claims against East Hampton Advisors under the abatement statute, holding that they had another adequate remedy via an appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b) Ala. R. Civ. P. certification. Ms. *31. The Court holds that uncertainty as to whether a Rule 54(b) certification will be granted “is an insufficient reason for an aggrieved party to bypass Rule 54(b) and immediately seek mandamus relief.” Ibid.
Justice Cook dissents from the denial of mandamus, arguing that the trial court erroneously applied the abatement statute in dismissing the claims against East Hampton Advisors. He contends that the first-filed action was the state court case, not the federal action initiated by East Hampton after acquiring the loans in question. Ms. *47.