Ex parte Vaughn, et al., [Ms. CL-2024-0737, Nov. 15, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024). The court (Moore, P.J., and Edwards, Hanson, and Fridy, JJ., concur; Lewis, J., dissents) denies a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the Commissioners of the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (“AMCC”) challenging the Montgomery Circuit Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over Jemmstone’s complaint invoking Ala. Code 1975, § 41-22-10, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as remedies for the denial of its application for a medical cannabis integrated-facility license. The caption of the complaint named only the AMCC but the preamble in the body of the complaint named the Commissioners and stated “who to the extent necessary are sued in their official capacities only…” Ms. *3.
In denying the petition, the court first distinguishes its decision in Redbud Remedies, LLC v. Alabama Med. Cannabis Comm’n, [Ms. CL-2023-0352, Mar. 29, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024) and notes “Redbud holds that a person who is omitted from both the caption and the body of a complaint does not become a defendant in the case.” Ms. *12. The court holds that the omission of the Commissioners from the caption of the complaint did not prevent the circuit court from acquiring subject matter jurisdiction:
Rule 10(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he title of the complaint must name all the parties ....” Thus, like its Alabama counterpart, Rule 10(a) requires a plaintiff to name all the defendants in the caption of a complaint. Although a small minority of federal cases may hold otherwise, see, e.g., Bennett v. Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516, 519 (7th Cir. 1998), the weight of federal authority agrees that “the caption is not determinative as to the identity of the parties to the action, the district court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or its subject matter jurisdiction over the claims ....” 5A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and A. Benjamin Spencer, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1321 (4th ed. 2018) (footnotes omitted)….
When the plaintiff identifies the parties being sued in the body of the complaint and states a claim or claims against those parties, the plaintiff has, in substance, identified those parties as defendants even if they are not mentioned in the caption of the complaint. The technical failure to comply with Rule 10(a) [Ala. R. Civ. P.] by omitting the names of all the defendants in the caption of the complaint should not defeat the clearly expressed intent of the plaintiff to include those parties in the lawsuit in those circumstances.
Ms. **13, 16.
The court also rejects the Commissioners’ argument that because they were never served with the complaint, subject matter jurisdiction was lacking:
The Commissioners argue that, if they were not properly served, the only true defendant would be the AMCC, meaning that the original complaint did not invoke the subject-matter jurisdiction of the circuit court. We do not consider that argument. The Commissioners have failed to show that they were not properly served in accordance with Ala. Code 1975, § 20-2A-20(l), which governed service in the underlying case, but, even if they had been improperly served, they were not dismissed as parties to the case for that reason at any point. See Rule 4(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. On March 11, 2024, when they filed their motion to dismiss, which was based on Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., the Commissioners did not claim that they had been improperly served, which they could have asserted under Rule 12(b)(5); thus, the Commissioners waived the defense of insufficiency of service of process at that time. See Rule 12(h)(1). The Commissioners became parties to the Jemmstone action even if they were never properly served.
Ms. *18.