Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission, [Ms. CL-2024-0073, June 21, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024). In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the court dismisses as moot the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission’s (“the AMCC”) mandamus petitions seeking to compel the Montgomery circuit court to vacate two discovery orders entered in a declaratory judgment action against AMCC filed by Alabama Always, LLC and subsequently joined by other entities also denied licenses relating to the production of medical cannabis.
Alabama Always LLC’s initial complaint named AMCC as the only defendant, and it later attempted to amend its complaint to name as additional defendants AMC commissioners in their official capacities. Because it named only AMCC as the lone defendant, the initial complaint filed by Alabama Always (and subsequently joined by several other similarly situated entities) “did not invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court” to consider the claims for declaratory relief pursuant to § 41-22-10, Ala Code 1975. Ms. *10.
Also, the amendment adding the commissioners was ineffective because “a purported amendment to a complaint that is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity is itself a nullity.” Ms. *11. Furthermore, “[a] court without subject-matter jurisdiction over a civil action cannot enter any valid orders allowing other parties to intervene in the action or providing for consolidation of the action with other cases. See Solomon v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 953 So. 2d 1211, 1222 (Ala. 2006). Thus, we conclude that the purported joinder of other parties and claims in the master case through invalid intervention orders was ineffective and that the purported consolidation of other cases with the master case did not alter the nature of the master case in any manner that would overcome the action being barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” Ms. **11-12.