Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission v. Jemmstone Alabama, LLC, Insa Alabama, LLC, Bragg Canna of Alabama, LLC, and Alabama Always, LLC (Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-23-901800).

• Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
• Decided: April 11, 2025
• Docket: CL-2024-0529
• Status: Published

Opinion

Rel: April 11, 2025

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025 _________________________

CL-2024-0529 _________________________

Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission

v.

Jemmstone Alabama, LLC, Insa Alabama, LLC, Bragg Canna of Alabama, LLC, and Alabama Always, LLC

Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (CV-23-901800)

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from a temporary restraining order ("TRO") that

was entered in one of numerous civil actions pending in the Montgomery

Circuit Court ("the circuit court") arising out of licensing proceedings

conducted in 2023 by the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission ("the CL-2024-0529

AMCC"). Currently before this court is a motion to dismiss filed by

Jemmstone Alabama, LLC ("Jemmstone"), one of the named appellees in

the case. For the reasons stated herein, although we deny the motion to

dismiss, we nevertheless dismiss the appeal ex mero motu.

Much of the procedural background has been summarized by this

court in our earlier decision regarding the AMCC's petition for a writ of

mandamus directed to the circuit court, Ex parte Alabama Medical

Cannabis Commission, [Ms. CL-2024-0463, Oct. 4, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___

(Ala. Civ. App. 2024) ("Ex parte AMCC"). Briefly stated, Jemmstone,

which had unsuccessfully applied to the AMCC for the issuance of an

"integrated-facility" medical-cannabis license, initiated a civil action

(Case No. CV-23-901800, hereinafter "the underlying action") on

December 27, 2023, in the circuit court against the AMCC; citing Ala.

Code 1975, § 41-22-10, as authority, Jemmstone sought relief in the form

of a judgment determining that the AMCC's integrated-facility license

determinations were void and an injunction barring any actions to

enforce those determinations. A TRO was entered on January 3, 2024,

by the circuit court in a related, but separate, civil action (Case No. CV-

23-231) brought by Alabama Always, LLC, another aggrieved integrated-

2 CL-2024-0529

facility medical-cannabis applicant, in which that court purported to

prevent the AMCC from, among other things, issuing any integrated-

facility medical-cannabis licenses. The text of that TRO indicated the

view of the circuit court that that TRO also "[r]elate[d] to" the underlying

action.

Despite the reference to the underlying action in the body of the

January 3, 2024, TRO entered in Case No. CV-23-231, this court

concluded, in an order dismissing a separate appeal taken by Trulieve

AL, Inc., ("Trulieve"), a would-be intervenor in the underlying action,

that "that reference was not sufficient to qualify as an entry of the

[January 3, 2024,] TRO in [the underlying action] under Rule 58(c), Ala.

R. Civ. P." Trulieve AL, Inc. v. Jemmstone Alabama, LLC (No. CL-2024-

0038, Aug. 23, 2024) (citing Ex parte Peake, 357 So. 3d 1192, 1196-97

(Ala. Civ. App. 2021)); accord Ex parte AMCC, ___ So. 3d at ___.

Moreover, this court concluded that the January 3, 2024, TRO in Case

No. CV-23-231 was a "void order[] arising from an action that is barred

by the doctrine of sovereign immunity" and further ordered that that case

be dismissed. Ex parte Alabama Med. Cannabis Comm'n, [Ms. CL-2024-

0073, Jun. 21, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024).

3 CL-2024-0529

At the request of Jemmstone, the circuit court, on June 25, 2024,

directed its clerk to enter in the underlying action the January 3, 2024,

TRO, and the clerk did so, pursuant to Rule 58(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., on June

26, 2024. On July 9, 2024, a notice of appeal from that TRO was filed in

the underlying action, which notice listed the AMCC as the sole appellant

and listed Jemmstone, along with Insa Alabama, LLC, Bragg Canna of

Alabama, LLC, and Alabama Always, LLC, as appellees; on July 10,

2024, Trulieve also filed a notice of appeal from the TRO (which appeal

has been assigned Appeal No. CL-2024-0535, an appeal that had been

formerly consolidated with this appeal).

On December 19, 2024, Jemmstone filed a motion seeking, among

other things, dismissal of the AMCC's appeal. Jemmstone averred, in

support of its position that this appeal should be dismissed, that this

court's decision in Ex parte AMCC, in which we opined that the AMCC

was not a proper party defendant in the underlying action, rendered this

appeal moot. The AMCC and Trulieve have filed responses to

Jemmstone's motion that, in pertinent part, dispute Jemmstone's

mootness argument.

4 CL-2024-0529

Although Ex parte AMCC is indeed dispositive, it is not for the

reason Jemmstone asserts in its motion; rather, that opinion made clear

that, based upon the doctrine of sovereign immunity as enshrined in

Section 14 of the Alabama Constitution of 2022, "the circuit court lacked

the power to issue an injunction against the AMCC in [the underlying]

action, and, to the extent that the TRO purports to enjoin the AMCC, the

TRO is void." ___ So. 3d at ___ (emphasis added). Because the claims

against the AMCC in the underlying action are based solely on Ala. Code

1975, § 41-22-10, a statute that (as Ex parte AMCC makes clear) cannot

abrogate the constitutional immunity of state agencies, the circuit court

likewise did not have the jurisdiction to enter the TRO against the AMCC

in the underlying action on June 26, 2024.

The voidness of the TRO as to the AMCC defeats absolutely the

appellate jurisdiction of this court as to this appeal: " '[A]n appellate court

must dismiss an attempted appeal from ... a void judgment.' " Redbud

Remedies, LLC v. Alabama Med. Cannabis Comm'n, [Ms. CL-2023-0352,

Mar. 29, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024) (emphasis added)

(quoting Vann v. Cook, 989 So. 2d 556, 559 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008)). Stated

another way, if "a moot case" is one that "has died" before it can be

5 CL-2024-0529

decided, see South Alabama Gas District v. Knight, 138 So. 3d 971, 975

(Ala. 2013), an appeal such as this one, which is predicated upon a void

order, has never truly come into being.

Based upon the foregoing facts and authorities, the appeal is

dismissed ex mero motu as having been taken from a void order. Our

conclusion necessitates that we deny the motion filed by the AMCC on

February 11, 2025, seeking substitution, in lieu of the AMCC, of the

AMCC's members as appellants, despite their not having been named as

appealing parties. See Rule 3(c), Ala. R. App. P. ("The notice of appeal

shall specify all parties taking the appeal and each adverse party against

whom the appeal is taken" (emphasis added)); Committee Comment to

Amendment to Rule 3(c) Effective January 1, 2017 ("The amendment

requires that the notice of appeal specify by name all appellants … and

is designed to eliminate any confusion as to the actual participants to the

appeal …."); see also Alabama Plating Tech., LLC v. Georgia Plating

Tech., LLC, [Ms. SC-2023-0250, Jun. 21, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ n.5

(Ala. 2024) (holding that, under Rule 3(c), as amended, issue regarding

propriety of portion of judgment favorable to party not named in parties'

6 CL-2024-0529

notices of appeal could not properly be decided by appellate court).

Jemmstone's motion to dismiss is denied.

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

All the judges concur.