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
© 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 AllJustice Department Says Fulton County Jail Conditions Violate Detainee Rights
6 minute readSupreme Court Rejects Push to Move Georgia Case Against Ex-Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows
3 minute read3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 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