Ex parte D.R.J. and Dana Sides, [Ms. 1190769, Oct. 30, 2020], ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2020). (Sellers, J.;
Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Bryan, Mendheim, Stewart, and Mitchell,
JJ., concur). The defendants, a minor and his mother and next friend,
sought a writ of mandamus directing the Lee Circuit Court to set aside
an order restoring their status of defendants in an action where the claims
against the minor and his mother had previously been dismissed as part
of a pro-tanto settlement. State Farm, the UIM carrier, had moved the
circuit court to order that the plaintiff had forfeited its right to UIM
benefits by releasing the defendants before allowing State Farm sufficient
time to consent to the settlement or to set aside the dismissal of the
claims against the defendants. Ms. **3-4. The circuit court set aside
the dismissal of the defendants.
The Court denies the writ and holds “[t]he defendants … make
no attempt to show how the matter complained of comes within any of the
recognized situations appropriate for mandamus review. It is well settled
that mandamus will not be granted for the purpose of merely reviewing
trial-court error; rather, mandamus review has essentially been limited
to well recognized situations in which the petitioners have a clear legal
right to the relief sought from the trial court but the trial court has
refused to grant the relief.” Ms. **7-8.