Benedek v. The Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of GA

The trial court improperly denied the plaintiff's request to amend his complaint to add additional claims against the defendants because he was entitled to amend his complaint as a matter of right before entry of a pretrial order or a ruling on a dispositive motion.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Dezso Benedek, a professor at the University of Georgia, appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his complaint against the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Michael Adams, and the University of Georgia “the original defendants” that alleged wrongdoing in connection with disciplinary actions taken against him. He contends the trial court erred by: 1 “denying amendment of his complaint to add Georgia RICO claims and parties and instead dismissing the action” based upon allegations in his original complaint ; 2 finding that his proposed RICO claims were barred by sovereign immunity ; 3 dismissing tort claims allowed by the Georgia Tort Claims Act; and 4 denying his motion for sanctions under OCGA § 9-15-14. For the reasons explained below, we reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

A summary of the procedural history of this case from Fulton County State Court to federal court and back again would not only be lengthy, but also unnecessary to the resolution of the issues before us. The relevant facts show that Benedek initially filed a complaint against the original defendants, which he later amended on multiple occasions to add additional claims following the filing of a motion to dismiss by the original defendants. Benedek also simultaneously sought the trial court’s permission to add an additional plaintiff, as well as individual defendants, through various motions and amended motions seeking leave to file his amended complaints. On March 24, 2014, Benedek filed his last amended complaint titled “Second Amended Complaint for Damages.” After considering the pending motions, the trial court issued an order in which it overlooked the effectiveness of Benedek’s last amended complaint against the original defendants. Instead, it concluded as follows:

Benedek v. The Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of GA

The trial court improperly denied the plaintiff's request to amend his complaint to add additional claims against the defendants because he was entitled to amend his complaint as a matter of right before entry of a pretrial order or a ruling on a dispositive motion.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report