Cert Petitions: December 23

Innovative Images LLC v. Summerville

Innovative Images involves a legal malpractice action where the defendant law firm sought to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, holding the arbitration clause included in the engagement agreement was unenforceable. The trial court reasoned that legal ethics rules required lawyers to explain the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration to their client before entering into arbitration.

The Court of Appeals reversed, noting that even if the trial court had correctly interpretation the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, those rules could not be imported into the analysis of whether the arbitration agreement was unconscionable or violated public policy.

The Court asked the parties to address two questions:

(1) Under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, is an attorney required to fully apprise his or her client of the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration before including a clause mandating binding arbitration of legal malpractice claims in the parties’ engagement agreement? 

(2) If so, does failing to so apprise a client render such a clause unenforceable under Georgia law?

Justices Blackwell and Boggs dissented from the grant of certiorari.

The case will be assigned to the April 2020 oral argument calendar.

The Court of Appeals opinion is available here. 

Mendez v. Moats et al

Mendez deals with the application of Georgia's ante litem notice (a requirement to sue state or county officials) to lawsuits against a county sheriff, in their official capacity, for negligent use of a motor vehicle.

Mendez sued the Polk County Sheriff (in his official capacity) and one of his deputies (in both her individual and official capacities) alleging that the Deputy's negligent use of her police vehicle had caused an accident in which he was injured.

As relevant here: the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Mendez's suit was barred because he had not properly send an ante-litem notice to the defendants. Mendez had, in fact, sent an ante-litem notice, but he sent it to the Chairman of the Polk County Board of Commissioners, rather than the sheriff himself. The defendants argued that because Mendez had not sent the notice to the Polk County Sheriff's department, his claims against both the Sheriff and the Deputy were barred.

The trial court denied the motion, but the en banc Court of Appeals reversed. The county provision of the ante litem notice provides "[a]ll claims against counties must be presented within 12 months after they accrue or become payable or the same are barred." O.C.G.A. 36-11-1. Writing for the Court, Judge Dillard wrote that recent Court of Appeals decisions hold the ante-litem notice applies to both counties and sheriffs as legally distinct entities, and so service of the notice on one is not service on the other.

Writing for the dissenting Judges, Judge Doyle wrote that a suit against the Sheriff in his official capacity was essentially a suit against the county, and therefore the proper defendant had been served with the ante-litem notice.

The Court asked the parties to address two questions:

(1) Does OCGA § 36-11-1 apply to official-capacity claims against a county sheriff for negligent use of a covered motor vehicle? 

(2) If so, does the proper presentment of such claims to the county commission satisfy the claimant’s duty under the statute?

Justices Blackwell, Peterson, Warren, and Ellington dissented from the grant of certiorari.

The case will be added to the April 2020 oral argument calendar.

The Court of Appeals opinion is available here.

Atlanta Women Specialists et al LLC v. Trabue et al

Editor's note: Case summaries will be available soon

The Court asked the parties to address two questions:

(1) Did the Court of Appeals err in determining that the plaintiffs’ vicarious liability claims against Atlanta Women’s Specialists, LLC based on Dr. Simonsen’s conduct were sufficiently pled?

(2) Did the Court of Appeals err in determining that, in order to seek apportionment of damages with regard to the negligence of Dr. Simonsen, the defendants were required to comply with OCGA § 51-12-33 (d)?  

Angus v. Trabue et al

Editor's note: Case summaries will be available soon

The Court asked the parties to address two questions:

(1) Did the Court of Appeals err in determining that the plaintiffs’ vicarious liability claims against Atlanta Women’s Specialists, LLC based on Dr. Simonsen’s conduct were sufficiently pled? 

(2) Did the Court of Appeals err in determining that, in order to seek apportionment of damages with regard to the negligence of Dr. Simonsen, the defendants were required to comply with OCGA § 51-12-33 (d)?

Grant, Vacate, and Remand

COBB HOSPITAL, INC. d/b/a WELLSTAR COBB HOSPITAL et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH et al.

The Court issued one grant, vacate, and remand today ("GVR" see See Supreme Court Rule 50 (2); Scott v. State, 306 Ga. 507, 507 n.1 (832 SE2d 426) (2019)).

In Cobb Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Community Health, 349 Ga. App. 452, 465 (2019). The Court of Appeals held that Cobb Hopsital and Kennestone hospital had failed to preserve their constitutional due process claims because those claims were not ruled on in the underlying administrative proceeding.

The Court granted the GVR, reasoning that so long as the party properly raises its constitutional claims during the administrative process, the claims may later be raised in and reviewed by the trial court - even if the administrative agency did not have authority to reach them.

Denied

S19C0441. BURKES v. THE STATE (A18A0821)
S19C1070. DANIELS v. THE STATE (A18A1865)
S19C1073. GRANT v. THE STATE (A18A1629)
S19C1077. HAWXHURST v. SAGE ATLANTA PROPERTIES, LTD (A18A2081)
S19C1080. SUNTRUST BANK v. BICKERSTAFF (A18A1519)
S19C1082. SCHAFFELD v. SCHAFFELD (A18A1947)
S19C1091. KUSHNER et al. v. LAYMAC (A18A1536)
S19C1093. KUMAR v. ROCHON et al.(A18A1574)
S19C1102. ALLI v. YORKSHIRE INVESTMENTS, LLC (A19D0255)
S19C1104. COLEMAN v. THE STATE (A18A1910)
S19C1106. SAMACA, LLC v. CELLAIRIS FRANCHISE, INC. et al. (A19D0372)
S20C0114. SAMACA, LLC v. CELLAIRIS FRANCHISE, INC. et al. (A19D0539)
S19C1119. COBBLE v. LOCKHART et al. (A19D0298)
S19C1132. COHEN et al. v. ROGERS (A16A1716, A16A1717)
S19C1144. DAN-FODIO et al. v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB (A19A1233)
S19C1161. SMITH v. POLK et al. (A19D0410)
S19C1170. DUPREE et al. v. ROGERS (A16A1714, A16A1715)
S19C1175. MORGAN et al. v. MORGAN (A19A0239)
S19C1180. SPOTTSVILLE v. ADAMS et al. (A19D0359)
S19C1191. SOLOMON v. THE STATE (A19D0388)
S19C1199. KAPPELMEIER v. BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT d/b/a PROMENADE AT BERKELEY (A19E0048)
S19C1220. YIM et al. v. CARR (A19A0716)
S19C1229. NAAR v. NAAR (A19A0560)
S19C1230. MARTIN v. THE STATE (A19A0025)
S19C1242. SIARAH ATLANTA HWY, LLC v. NEW ERA VENTURES, LLC (A19A0724, A19A0725)
S19C1243. BEACHAM v. BEACHAM (A19A1638)
S19C1246. WHITE v. FULTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT (A19A0773)
S19C1260. ULBRICH v. GA. COMPOSITE MEDICAL BOARD (A19D0361)
S19C1270. TRAMMEL et al. v. TRAMMEL (A19A0634)
S19C1272. JOHNSON v. THE STATE (A18A0990)
S19C1274. HAMLETT v. THE STATE (A19A0141)
S19C1275. HAMLETT v. THE STATE (A19A0142)
S19C1276. SMITH v. THE STATE (A19D0423)
S19C1289. DICKERSON v. BROWN (A19A1016)
S19C1292. HUSSAIN v. MARIETTA HALAL MEAT et al. (A19A0043)
S19C1297. KIMBROUGH v. THE STATE (A19A1482)
S19C1305. WHITE v. THE STATE (A19A0504)
S19C1317. GUERRERO-MOYA v. THE STATE (A19A0601)
S19C1318. GARRETT v. THE STATE (A19I0243)
S19C1320. THOMPSON v. THE STATE (A19A0416)
S19C1321. PORTER v. THE STATE (A19D0463)
S19C1322. STEPHENS v. THE STATE (A19D0470)
S19C1333. MARCUS v. MARCUS (A19A1958)
S19C1338. HARRISON v. THE STATE (A19A0196)
S19C1349. HILL et al. v. THE STATE (A19I0239)
S19C1356. NEAL v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH et al. (A19A0227, A19A0369)
S19C1392. WEST v. THE LIGON FIRM, P.C. (A19D0488)
S19C1395. MURILLO v. THE STATE (A19A0879)
S19C1406. GRAY et al. v. HAMILTON STATE BANK (A19A0635)
S19C1425. PATTERSON v. THE STATE (A19A0085)
S19C1440. HUNT v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS (A19E0061)
S19C1458. CABAN v. THE STATE (A19A0126)
S20C0152. HUNT v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY (A19A2382)
S20C0182. BEACHAM v. BEACHAM (A19D0565)
S20C0407. BEACHAM v. BEACHAM (A20A0235)