Cardinale v. City of Atlanta

Trial court did not err in granting the city's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because plaintiff based his claim on O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 e 2's requirement that, in the case of a roll call vote during a meeting, the city must set out in its meeting minutes how each member voted, but the vote at issue, indisputably, was not a roll call vote, as required by the statute.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Matthew Cardinale filed a pro se complaint against the City of Atlanta and several city officials collectively, “the City” for failure to comply with the Open Meetings Act, OCGA § 50-14-1 et seq. “the Act”. The City moved to dismiss Cardinale’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The trial court granted the motion, and Cardinale appeals. Cardinale argues that the minutes of a meeting of the Atlanta City Council omit information required by the Act, but the language of the Act does not support his contention. He also argues that his complaint states a claim against the City for failure to advertise the meeting as required by the Act, but his complaint only refers in passing to the possibility that the City may have violated the advertising requirement. We therefore agree that his complaint fails to state a claim and affirm. A motion to dismiss may be granted “if the allegations in the complaint disclose with certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts that could be proved in support of the claim.” Punctuation omitted. Chisolm v. Tippens , 289 Ga. App. 757 658 SE2d 147 2008. We review the trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss de novo, construing the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff. Id.

Viewed in this manner, Cardinale’s complaint shows that in February 2010, the Atlanta City Council held its annual elected officials’ retreat at the Georgia Aquarium. The event was advertised as a “public meeting.” During the retreat, members of the City Council voted on whether to amend its rules regarding public comment at council committee meetings. According to the complaint, members voted eight to seven not to amend the rules. The minutes of the meeting, however, did not reflect how each member voted. Instead, the minutes stated: “After an extensive discussion it was determined that the membership was not in support of amending the existing law.”

Cardinale v. City of Atlanta

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report