High Court Pulls Plug on Counties' Call for $100M in 911 Charges
“Concluding that the 911 charge is a tax as a matter of law, and the Counties' lawsuits thus are precluded, we reverse the Court of Appeals," Justice Nels Peterson wrote for a unanimous Georgia Supreme Court.
February 20, 2019 at 05:58 PM
4 minute read
The Georgia Supreme Court has thrown out a lawsuit against telephone companies filed by county governments alleging they've been shortchanged by more than $100 million in 911 call charges.
The case is an appeal from BellSouth, AT&T and EarthLink seeking to overturn Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge Randy Rich's denial of the companies' motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the governments of two suburban counties, Cobb and Gwinnett. The counties sued the phone companies over the right to audit records in search of $50 million in alleged unpaid fees. Cobb and Gwinnett also sought to combine their lawsuit with others around the state, raising the stakes to about $100 million for three years of allegedly uncollected and unpaid fees.
The Georgia Court of Appeals partially reversed and partially affirmed Rich. The intermediate appellate court disagreed that the 911 Act does not sanction a lawsuit by the counties against the phone companies for their alleged failure to collect the 911 charges. But the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that the counties could pursue their claims against the phone companies under Georgia Code § 51-1-6 and § 51-1-8. The Court of Appeals also vacated Rich's ruling that the 911 charges are fees, and remanded the issue of whether they are a tax or a fee to the trial court for further proceedings.
The phone companies appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to review the case to determine whether the 911 charge is a tax or fee.
“Concluding that the 911 charge is a tax as a matter of law, and the Counties' lawsuits thus are precluded, we reverse the Court of Appeals. That court is directed to remand the case to the trial court with instructions to grant the Telephone Companies' motions to dismiss the Counties' claims for damages,” Justice Nels Peterson said in a unanimous opinion released Monday.
The high court's decision effectively scuttles more than 30 other cases that the phone companies said are pending in Georgia state and federal courts awaiting resolution of this one. Lawsuits have been filed by 20 local governments seeking more than $110 million in 911 charges from more than 50 telephone companies.
The counties' legal team includes: former Gov. Roy Barnes, John Bevis and Benjamin Rosichan of the Barnes Law Group; James Evangelista and David Worley of Evangelista Worley; and Jeffrey Harris and Madeline McNeeley of Harris Lowry Manton.
“The Georgia Supreme Court ignored decades of precedent to rule in favor of special interests,” the lawyers for Cobb and Gwinnett said in a joint statement. “The Court is saying that a fee that no one—including the General Assembly—ever thought was a tax is now a tax, so it can't be collected because the General Assembly didn't put it in the tax code. As a result of this Court-ordained Catch-22, Georgia 911 systems are losing $100 million a year, statewide, that is badly needed to upgrade 911.”
J. Henry Walker IV and John Jett of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton represented AT&T and BellSouth. The firm deferred questions to AT&T.
“We're pleased with the Court's ruling,” AT&T said through a spokesperson. “The 911 system is an important public safety component of our community. The Court's ruling correctly applies Georgia law and reinforces the process for administering these taxes. We look forward to continuing to support Georgia's 911 system for our customers.”
Frank Lowrey of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore represented EarthLink, Deltacom and Business Telecom.
“Our clients have always complied with Georgia law regarding the collection of 911 taxes, and so never should have been named as defendants in this lawsuit,” Lowrey said Wednesday. “Further, our clients are pleased with the unanimous ruling of the Georgia Supreme Court, which should put an end to this unauthorized and meritless litigation.”
The case is BellSouth v. Cobb, No. S17G2011.
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
© 2025 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 AllGeorgia Republicans Push to Limit Lawsuits. But Would That Keep Insurance Rates From Rising?
5 minute readA Plan Is Brewing to Limit Big-Dollar Suits in Georgia—and Lawyers Have Mixed Feelings
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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