War Paint Movie, LLC v. Alabama Film Office, a division of the Alabama Department of Commerce; Ellen McNair, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Commerce; and Meghann Bridgeman, in her official capacity as Manager of the Alabama Film Office, CL-2025-0560

War Paint sought Alabama film incentives after applying to produce a movie in the state, and the Film Office approved its application subject to actual expenditures and timely audit requirements. 1
War Paint later claimed it spent about $1.8 million in Alabama, but the Film Office denied reimbursement for failure to submit a timely final incentive audit. 2
After War Paint exhausted administrative efforts, it filed suit in circuit court seeking judicial review under the AAPA and declaratory relief under § 41-22-10. 3
The circuit court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, ruling the incentive forfeiture was not a contested case and that no justiciable controversy existed. 4
War Paint appealed, arguing the incentive award was effectively a license and its revocation triggered AAPA protections. 5
The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding the incentives were not a license or rule-based controversy subject to AAPA review. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the incentive forfeiture proceedings a contested case under the AAPA? 7	War Paint said the incentives were a license, so forfeiture was license revocation.	Film Office said incentives were discretionary payments, not a license.	No; the incentives were not a license and the AAPA did not apply. 8
Did the Film Office’s decision require AAPA hearing procedures? 9	War Paint claimed it was entitled to notice and a hearing before revocation.	Film Office said it already gave War Paint opportunities to respond.	No; the AAPA’s contested-case procedures were not triggered. 10
Did War Paint state a justiciable declaratory-judgment claim under § 41-22-10? 11	War Paint argued the Film Office’s revocation process violated the AAPA.	Film Office said there was no live controversy and no challenged rule.	No; War Paint identified no rule and no justiciable controversy. 12
Did the circuit court lack subject-matter jurisdiction because no AAPA claim existed? 13	War Paint argued the dismissal was erroneous because AAPA remedies applied.	Film Office said the complaint fell outside the AAPA and was untimely.	Yes; absence of an AAPA-contested case deprived the court of jurisdiction. 14

Hawkins v. Ivey, 365 So. 3d 1058 (Ala. 2022) (subject-matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo 15)
Hudson v. Ivey, 383 So. 3d 636 (Ala. 2023) (no presumption of correctness attaches to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction 16)
Brady v. State Pilotage Comm'n, 208 So. 3d 1136 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) (discharge from an apprenticeship was not a contested case under the AAPA 17)
Hunt Transition & Inaugural Fund, Inc. v. Grenier, 782 So. 2d 270 (Ala. 2000) (declaratory relief requires a bona fide, presently existing justiciable controversy 18)
Underwood v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 39 So. 3d 120 (Ala. 2009) (declaratory claims against officials are nonjusticiable absent a live controversy 19)
Keith v. LeFleur, 400 So. 3d 608 (Ala. Civ. App. 2023) (mandatory agency memorandum was a rule under the AAPA 20)
Families Concerned About Nerve Gas Incineration v. Alabama Dep't of Env't Mgmt., 826 So. 2d 857 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) (courts consider whether an agency intends to be bound by a standard in deciding if it is a rule 21)
Ex parte Alabama State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs, 11 So. 3d 221 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (official-capacity claims may be barred absent a statutory exception 22)
Dalton Drug Co. v. OptumRx, Inc., 424 So. 3d 1254 (Ala. 2025) (if no justiciable controversy exists when suit is commenced, the court lacks jurisdiction 23)
DeKalb Cnty. LP Gas Co. v. Suburban Gas, Inc., 729 So. 2d 270 (Ala. 1998) (courts interpret statutes as written even if results seem inefficient 24)