Ex parte Jefferson County Board of Education, [Ms. SC-2024-0756, Apr. 4, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Bryan, J.; Wise, Mitchell, Cook, and McCool, JJ., concur; Sellers, J., concurs in the result; Shaw, J., dissents; Mendheim, J., dissents, which Stewart, C.J., joins) issues a writ of mandamus to the Jefferson Circuit Court vacating an order compelling the Jefferson County Board of Education (“the Board”) to respond to non-party subpoenas.
The complaint alleged that a school bus driver, named in the complaint only as “Mr. Josh,” left a minor child, K.S., on the bus asleep and unattended, causing her to suffer various personal injuries. Sharonda Smith, as parent/guardian of K.S., sued the Board, “Mr. Josh,” and fictitious defendants. Ms. *2. In an order dismissing the Board based on State immunity, the circuit court also allowed Smith 180 days to perfect service on Mr. Josh. Ms. *3.
Smith amended her complaint to identify Joshua Dunn as the bus driver, added his Estate as a defendant, and subsequently perfected service on the Estate. Ms. *4. The circuit court ordered the Board to respond to non-party subpoenas issued by Smith. Ibid. The Board sought mandamus review asserting lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ms. **4-5. The Court first reiterates that a mandamus petition challenging subject-matter jurisdiction may be filed at any time, Ms. *10, citing Ex parte K.R., 210 So. 3d 1106, 1112 (Ala. 2016), and concludes the Board’s petition raised a meritorious jurisdictional issue because a circuit court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction when the only named defendant is entitled to State immunity. Ms. **11-12, citing Ex parte Board of Trustees of University of Alabama, [Ms. SC-2024-0210, Aug. 30, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2024).
The Court concludes as a matter of first impression that “a partial name is insufficient to identify a named party in a pleading, even if the pleader purports to know that party’s identity or includes other descriptive information.” Ms. *16. Thus, “Mr. Josh” was insufficient to describe the intended defendant. Therefore, the only party to the action was entitled to State immunity; consequently, “the circuit court’s orders requiring the Board to respond to Smith’s subpoenas were void, and the Board has a clear legal right to relief from those orders and from any future orders against it.” Ms. *21.
Justice Mendheim’s dissent, joined by Chief Justice Stewart, asserts the authorities cited by the Board did not consider orders expressly adjudicating “the claims against the served defendant and preserving the action against fictitiously named defendants, particularly an order allowing a limited time to complete service of process, which would appear to be within the discretion of the trial court under Rule 1(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.” Ms. *37. Regarding the Board’s failure to cite analogous authority, the dissent asserts “‘[i]f anything, the extraordinary nature of a writ of mandamus makes the Rule 21 [Ala. R. App. P.] requirement of citation to authority even more compelling than the Rule 28 [, Ala. R. App. P.,] requirement of citation to authority in a brief on appeal’”). Ibid., quoting Ex parte Young, 352 So. 3d 1160, 1165 (Ala. 2021).