October 3, 2014
Ex parte Tommie Strickland, individually and d/b/a Strickland Motors Sales
Tommie Strickland, individually and d/b/a Strickland Motors, Inc. In re: Safeway Insurance Company of Alabama, Inc.
Mobile Circuit Court, CV-14-900562
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
Tommie Strickland, individually and doing business as Strickland Motors Sales,  petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the Mobile Circuit Court ("the trial court") to vacate its order denying his motion to dismiss the action and to enter an order dismissing the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the petition.
On August 11, 2014, this court notified Strickland that his petition was deficient because, among other things, there were no attachments filed in support of the petition in accordance with Rule 21(a)(1)(E), Ala. R. App. P. Strickland was given seven days to cure the deficiencies and was notified that "[f]ailure to cure the deficiencies within [seven] days may result in dismissal of this petition."
Rule 21(a)(1)(E) provides:
"(1) General. Application for a writ of mandamus or of prohibition directed to a judge or judges shall be made by filing a petition therefor with the clerk of the appellate court having jurisdiction thereof with certificate of service on the respondent judge or judges and on all parties to the action in the trial court. The petition shall contain, under appropriate headings and in the order here indicated:
"(E) Attachments. Copies of any order or opinion or parts of the record that would be essential to an understanding of the matters set forth in the petition." (Emphasis added.)
In response to the deficiency notice, Strickland provided this court with a copy of his motion to dismiss and two documents filed in support of that motion. However, Strickland has not provided a copy of the order purportedly denying the motion to dismiss. "The petitioner has the responsibility of supplying the Court with those parts of the record that are essential to an understanding of the issues set forth in the mandamus petition." Ex parte Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 872 So.2d 810, 814 n. 6 (Ala. 2003). Accordingly, Strickland's petition still does not comply with the requirements of Rule 21(a)(1)(E). Without having before us a copy of the order from which Strickland seeks relief, this court is left to make assumptions as to whether a written order has even been entered. Moreover, we are unable to review the trial court's grounds for entering the purported order or to otherwise make a determination as to the propriety of the purported order.
Because the petition does not comply with the requirements of Rule 21(a)(1)(E), Ala. R. App. P., in that it does not contain materials essential to our consideration of the request for relief, the petition is dismissed.
Pittman, Thomas, Moore, and Donaldson, JJ., concur.