Lawsuit Reform Group Urges 'Yes' on Business Court Vote
The court would provide much needed relief to an already taxed judicial system while ensuring businesses located in or considering a move to Georgia have the ability for their matters to be resolved in a fair and timely manner.
November 01, 2018 at 05:54 PM
4 minute read
On Nov. 6, Georgians have the opportunity to improve our court system and our economy by voting YES on Amendment No. 2, which would establish a statewide business court in Georgia.
What is a business court and why is it important?
Business courts are specialized courts designed to efficiently provide resolution of commercial cases that, due to their complexity, can take time and resources away from other pending matters. These cases, in which millions of dollars are often on the line, typically involve multiple witnesses and thousands of pages of evidence that must be considered. The court would provide much needed relief to an already taxed judicial system while ensuring businesses located in or considering a move to Georgia have the ability for their matters to be resolved in a fair and timely manner, impacting their ability to grow and create jobs, or in some cases even remain open.
While the resolution of these cases is critical to the businesses involved, they often get relegated to the bottom of the docket in state or superior courts due to the constitutional obligation of the courts to first hear criminal, divorce and land cases. Consequently, businesses in some cases have waited for years for a decision, forcing many to file bankruptcy, or close, because they could not move forward with their business plan. As a result, both jobs and contributions to Georgia's tax base are lost forever.
As important as timeliness is judicial expertise. Most jurists do not have extensive experience dealing with the specialized subject matter involved in complex commercial cases. Amendment No. 2 would permit the governor to appoint business court judges with the appropriate knowledge and experience to five-year terms with the confirmation of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. As a result, when a case is brought before the new business court, litigants on both sides will be heard by a judge familiar with the appropriate area of the law.
With a business court, all parties involved in a dispute will benefit from faster resolution of cases, resulting in lower litigation costs, enhanced predictability, less time in court and improved case management. Additionally, when these time-consuming cases are removed from the general docket, state and superior courts will be able to move their other cases more quickly. This has borne out in both Fulton and Gwinnett counties, which currently have local business courts—and we believe that all Georgia counties would benefit from the same access, especially as we work to attract new economic development in every area of the state. In addition, as Georgia seeks to maintain its economic competitiveness, it is important to note that our neighbors in North Carolina and South Carolina both have statewide business courts that are working well. If we want to remain the top state for business and job growth we must continue to make ourselves even more attractive than our neighbors—which includes the creation of a court system that is efficient and responsive.
Amendment No. 2 would come at no cost to Georgia taxpayers. The business court would be a self-sustaining entity, funded entirely by the fees paid by a party who requests its case be moved to the business court. It would also permit trials to be held in the county where the case was originally filed.
Statistics from existing business courts show that the vast majority of cases are fully resolved in less than one year and most motions decided within 30 days. These time frames are approximately half as long as it takes similar cases to make their way through the state and superior courts. The statewide business court will ultimately make our government more efficient while better serving the needs of both citizens and employers across Georgia.
We encourage all voters to vote yes on Amendment No. 2 on the general election ballot this year.
Kade Cullefer is the executive director of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform.
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 AllBusiness Breakups: Why Business and Commercial Cases Are Well-Suited to Mediation
5 minute readIn RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
Trending Stories
- 1Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 2Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
- 3'America's Next Top Model' Contestant Says Ye Assaulted Her
- 4LexisNexis Responds to Canadian Professor’s Criticism of Lexis+ AI
- 5'Everything Leaves a Digital Footprint': How to Navigate the Complexities of Internal Investigations
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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