Garnett v. Murray

Trial courts have discretion to shorten the time period for responding to a motion to dismiss.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

On August 17, 2005 Ruby M. Garnett filed a mandamus petition against Brian C. Murray to compel Murray to issue an income deduction order to garnish the wages of Garnett’s ex-husband who was allegedly in arrears on his child support obligation. Murray had previously been employed by Maximus, Inc., which had contracted with the State of Georgia to provide child support enforcement services between July 1, 2003, and September 30, 2005. Murray filed an answer and a motion to dismiss the petition on October 18, 2005, pointing out, inter alia, that he no longer works for Maximus, Inc., and is not in a position to perform the act that Garnett wants him to perform.1 On June 22, 2006, Murray filed a supplemental brief in support of his motion.2 Following a hearing on July 13, 2006, the court granted Murray’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition for mandamus with prejudice.

1. Relying upon Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.2,3 Garnett asserts the court erred in ruling on Murray’s motion to dismiss without allowing her a sufficient period of time to respond to Murray’s supplemental brief. This assertion is without merit. The supplemental brief was not a motion; it was filed in support of Murray’s motion to dismiss which was filed more than eight months before the hearing. Additionally, a trial judge has the discretion to shorten the period of time to respond to a motion to dismiss in a civil case. See Kidd v. Unger , 207 Ga. App. 109, 110 2 427 SE2d 82 1993. More importantly, Garnett has not shown how she was harmed by the alleged error. “As the record stands in this case, judgment for Murray is demanded. Garnett makes no claim that there would have been any addition to the record or that additional time to respond to the supplemental brief would have changed the state of the record in any way.” Premium Distributing Co. v. National Distributing Co. , 157 Ga. App. 666, 670 278 SE2d 468 1981.

Garnett v. Murray

Trial courts have discretion to shorten the time period for responding to a motion to dismiss.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report