Appeals Court Reboots Challenge to Falcons' No-Tax Stadium Deal
The panel wrote that, while the claims against the county officials in their official capacities were barred by sovereign immunity, they could be sued on their individual capacities for declaratory and injunctive relief.
December 05, 2018 at 06:18 PM
4 minute read
The Georgia Court of Appeals partly revived a challenge to the deal allowing the Atlanta Falcons and Mercedes-Benz Stadium to avoid paying Fulton County any ad valorem taxes on the facility.
A group of taxpayers sued the county Board of Tax Assessors and chief appraiser in 2017 claiming among other things that the agreement improperly declared the stadium property nontaxable and that the law under which the deal was reached is unconstitutional.
A Fulton County judge dismissed the case earlier this year, ruling the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under which relief could be granted and that the constitutional claims were therefore moot.
But the appellate panel wrote in a Dec. 3 opinion that, while the claims against the county officials in their official capacities were barred by sovereign immunity, they could be sued on their individual capacities for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Because the trial court improperly dismissed those claims, it also erred in declaring moot the constitutional challenge to the underlying statute, which grants tax-exempt status to property owned by the Georgia World Congress Center Authority, the opinion said.
As detailed in the opinion and other filings, the dispute centers on 2013 agreements between the Falcons, the World Congress Center, the company to established operate the stadium, and the Atlanta Development Authority to raze the old Georgia Dome and replace it with the new stadium.
Among the provisions of the deal was a requirement that neither the World Congress Center nor the stadium would pay ad valorem taxes, subject to approval by the county tax board.
The board met later that year and approved a measure exempting the stadium and property from taxation.
A half-dozen Fulton property owners filed suit in October 2017, arguing the board failed to ascertain whether the property was properly tax-exempt under the law, and asked that the court declare it was a taxable.
The plaintiffs also argued the World Congress Center Authority statute is unconstitutional because the law was never approved by a statewide referendum.
The county filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Craig Schwall granted in March. He ruled the plaintiffs' request for mandamus relief against the tax board failed because the panel had exercised its public duty to “investigate and identify” taxable property before declaring the stadium exempt.
Schwall also said the claims against the county officials in their official capacities were barred by sovereign immunity and that those against them in their individual capacities were barred by official immunity.
The Dec. 3 appellate opinion, written by Judge Anne Elizabeth Barnes with the concurrence of Judges Carla McMillian and Clyde Reese, said Schwall was correct in dismissing the mandamus claims.
But Schwall “erred in dismissing their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the tax board members and chief appraiser in their individual capacities based on the doctrine of official immunity,” Barnes wrote.
The Georgia Supreme Court has held that, while the state Constitution protects public officials from suits seeking “monetary and other retrospective relief,” it “does not limit the availability of prospective relief,” wrote Barnes, citing the high court's 2017 ruling in Lathrop v. Deal (301 Ga. 408).
“Hence, the doctrine of official immunity does not bar suits for injunctive relief brought against county officers in their individual capacities, and the trial court erred in concluding otherwise,” the opinion said.
Because of that ruling, the motion to declare the World Congress Center statute unconstitutional “is no longer moot,” wrote Barnes.
The plaintiffs are represented by Fayetteville solo Wayne Kendall, who said he was “considering all of our options” regarding the ruling.
Fulton County Attorney Patrise Perkins-Hooker, whose office is defending the case, did not reply to request for comment Wednesday.
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 AllFederal Judge Rejects Teams' Challenge to NASCAR's 'Anticompetitive Terms' in Agreement
Trial Begins for Man Accused of Killing Ga. Nursing Student Laken Riley
5 minute read'Rebound' In Demand For Legal Services Places Southeast Among Top 3 Regions In U.S.
4 minute readMaryland Atty Pushes Judge to Grant Discovery in Reverse Discrimination Suit Against King & Spalding
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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