State Supreme Court Grapples With Judicial Immunity for Former Judge
Three Georgia Court of Appeals judges, including the chief, joined with six state Supreme Court justices in a case asking them to reverse their appellate colleagues and restore immunity to the former chief judge of DeKalb County's problematic—and defunct—Recorders Court.
May 07, 2018 at 03:51 PM
5 minute read
The Supreme Court of Georgia was urged Monday to reverse a state Court of Appeals ruling that stripped the former judge of DeKalb County's now defunct Recorders Court of immunity in a civil case.
That former judge, Nelly Withers, and her court administrator, Troy Thompson, urged the high court to reinstate Withers' immunity from litigation brought by former defendant Bobby Schroeder, who had been ticketed for a traffic infraction.
The case has attracted the attention—and alarm—of the state councils of superior court, state court and magistrate judges. The organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs backing Withers even though her operation of Recorders Court was so problematic that the Georgia General Assembly abolished it in 2015.
Withers' court was the target of a string of lawsuits questioning its operations, including allegations it was illegally adjudicating cases over which it had no jurisdiction.
When the Legislature created four new state court judgeships in 2015 to handle traffic citations and ordinance violations that had been the purview of Recorders Court, Withers was not appointed to fill one of the posts.
The judges' associations contend the 2017 Court of Appeals ruling, if allowed to stand, “would require judges and court personnel to defend against all lawsuits alleging negligent management, supervision and training of personnel” and would likely have “significant, negative repercussions on the courts.”
On Monday, in a notable twist, three state Court of Appeals judges—Chief Judge Stephen Dillard, Amanda Mercier and Clyde Reese III—stood in for Justices Nels Peterson, Carol Hunstein and Chief Justice Harris Hines to hear Withers' appeal.
The appellate judges will join with the high court's six other justices—David Nahmias, Harold Melton, Keith Blackwell, Michael Boggs, Britt Grant and Robert Benham—in reviewing whether to reverse an opinion written by their appellate colleagues Christopher McFadden, Charles Bethel and Elizabeth “Lisa” Branch, who was recently elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
McFadden, writing for the panel last year, reversed a DeKalb County Superior Court judge who dismissed the case.
McFadden's opinion held that, while judicial immunity may shield judges from suits stemming from actions they perform in their judicial capacity, it does not extend to administrative actions such as supervising court employees and overseeing the efficient operation of a court.
The appellate panel was also persuaded by Schroeder's counsel, David Ates, who argued that, because Withers and Thompson were negligent in executing specific administrative duties, they were not immune from liability. Ates died shortly after the opinion was handed down, and Schroeder is now represented by Harlan Miller and Gerard Lupa.
The appellate panel also reinstated Schroeder's civil rights claims over allegations he was illegally jailed because Withers and Thompson oversaw a dysfunctional court operation that they knew was understaffed, underfunded and routinely transmitted inaccurate information to the state.
Although Schroeder appeared in court and paid his fine, court personnel notified the state Department of Driver Services that his driver's license should be suspended because he had not shown up in court and never paid his ticket.
The subsequent suspension of Schroeder's license led to two more traffic stops, revocation proceedings of his probation as a first offender, a month-long sojourn in jail, the loss of his job and the repossession of his car before court personnel belatedly corrected the error.
On Monday, attorney Thomas Mitchell of Carothers & Mitchell claimed Schroeder's counsel had not pointed to specific official acts or duties that Withers or Thompson negligently failed to perform. The case was tossed out on a motion to dismiss prior to any discovery.
Justice David Nahmias pointed out that Mitchell was relying on cases that had been decided on motions for summary judgment after discovery. He asked how anyone would know so early in the litigation whether the county or the court had a policy laying out specific duties for the court administrator that would ensure that license suspensions were properly processed—policies that he may have violated.
Nahmias also said Mitchell's argument suggested he was seeking a rule that supervision and training responsibilities by an agency head were shielded by immunity, and that a defendant challenging those practices had no case.
“You don't get discovery, you don't get anything?” he asked. “If you allege ministerial dysfunction, you lose.”
“When you are talking about a chief judge and court administrator, that has to be the rule,” Mitchell said.
Justice Robert Benham asked if that meant litigants would have no recourse if the court bought Mitchell's argument.
“For the clerks themselves, they are supposed to do this. It appears to be ministerial duty” that would include immunity from liability, Mitchell said. “For the judge and court administrator, that's not the case. They need to be protected by judicial immunity.”
Benham also asked Miller, “What is it that you claim that the judge should have done that the judge failed to do?”
“We haven't specified that in the complaint,” Miller acknowledged. “It goes back to our ability to conduct some discovery to find out. … This court was a creature of DeKalb County. … We don't know what kind of rules, regulations, conditions or requirements may have been established by DeKalb County.”
But, provided a policy exists and was put in place by the judge, Miller argued “It's fair for the chief judge to be held responsible for it until the policy is rescinded.”
“That reasoning applies to all classes of courts,” Dillard interjected. “If you are right, then judicial immunity is a dead letter in this state for the most part.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTo Woo Law Firms, Legal Training Platforms Are Combining Hands-On and Online Learning
'Frustrated' Muscogee County Jury Returns $3M Verdict Against Bounty Hunters After Unlawful Home Invasion
7 minute readGiuliani's Son Says Dad Gifted Him 4 World Series Rings Sought by Defamed Ga. Election Workers
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250