Colbert County Board of Education v. Satchel, [Ms. CL-2024-0534, Feb. 14, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2025). The court (Lewis, J.; Hanson and Fridy, JJ., concur; Moore, P.J., concurs specially, which Edwards, J., joins) affirms the Colbert Circuit Court’s judgment reversing the Colbert County Board of Education’s (“the Board”) termination of Melcha Satchel’s employment as a school principal.
The court first considers whether the Board properly perfected its appeal from the circuit court’s judgment. The Board filed its notice of appeal in the circuit court despite the controlling statute’s requirement that “‘[a]n appeal by either party shall be perfected by filing a written notice of appeal with the clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals within 14 days after the receipt of the final written decision of the circuit judge….’” Ms. * 6, quoting § 16-24B-5(a), Ala. Code 1975. The court concluded it had jurisdiction “[b]ecause the notice of appeal was transmitted from the circuit court to this court within 14 days .…” Ms. *7.
However, the court declines to reach the merits of the Board’s appeal because the Board’s opening brief failed to address all of the reasons stated by the circuit court in support of its judgment. The court reiterates “‘[w]hen a trial court provides multiple reasons supporting its judgment, an appellant seeking reversal of that judgment is required to challenge all of those reasons in its opening brief, failing which the judgment is due to be affirmed.’ Alabama Department of Mental Health v. Nobles Grp. Homes, Inc., 343 So. 3d 1140, 1145-46 (Ala. Civ. App. 2021); see also Soutullo v. Mobile Cnty., 58 So. 3d 733, 738-39 (Ala. 2010).” Ms. *8.
The court also notes
[A]lthough the Board cited authority in its reply brief, our supreme court has held that “[a]uthority cited for the first time in a reply brief cannot cure a complete failure to cite authority in the opening brief.” Griggs v. NHS Mgmt., LLC, [Ms. SC-2023-0784, Nov. 15, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ n. 2 (Ala. 2024). Moreover, although the Alabama Association of School Boards, as amicus curiae, argued the notice issue with citations to authority, an amicus curiae is not a party to a cause and is limited to raising issues that were raised by the parties and argued in the parties’ briefs. See, e.g., Hanes v. Merrill, 384 So. 3d 616, 621 n. 3 (Ala. 2023) (holding that the court “will not consider the amicus’s arguments, which go far beyond the scope of the parties’ briefs and the plaintiffs’ request for relief.”
Ms. **10-11.