Pursuant to OCGA § 40-6-20, the defendant/appellant City of Duluth, Georgia the City operated a “traffic-control signal monitoring device” red light camera at the intersection of Peachtree Industrial Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road. In May 2005, plaintiff/appellee Jeff Morgan was mailed a citation from the City after his vehicle was caught on camera running the red light at this intersection. He did not contest the citation and the City assessed him $94.50 for the violation. The assessment by the City included the $70.00 “civil monetary penalty” provided for by statute, OCGA § 40-6-20 f 3 A, plus “applicable court surcharges” the City added to the penalty pursuant to OCGA § 15-21-73. In July 2005, the Attorney General issued Unofficial Opinion U2005-4 opining that the “civil monetary penalty” imposed under OCGA § 40-6-20 is not a “fine” or “conviction” subject to additional monetary penalties or surcharges pursuant to OCGA § 15-21-73. After this opinion was issued, the City stopped imposing and collecting the surcharges and returned any funds it had collected that had not already been disbursed. Morgan, however, did not get his money back, and he filed suit, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, against inter alia, the City and the City of Duluth Municipal Court collectively referred to hereinafter as the City seeking class certification and alleging a violation of due process under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, unjust enrichment; unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices; unfair, deceptive and misleading practices; negligent misrepresentation; fraudulent misrepresentation; concealment; and failure to disclose. The City then filed a third party complaint against the State of Georgia, the Georgia Superior Court Clerk’s Cooperative Authority, the Peace Officers’ Annuity & Benefit Fund and others the Authority alleging that the third party defendants would be liable to the City for all or part of Morgan’s claims in the event he was successful in his claims against the City since the third party defendants received portions of the assessment.1
Both the City and the Authority moved for summary judgment. In a detailed order, the trial court either dismissed or granted summary judgment on all pending claims except Morgan’s claim under 42 USC § 1983 alleging a violation of his substantive due process rights. The trial court also denied summary judgment to the third party defendants, rejecting their argument that the City did not have the authority or power to assert its claim against them and additionally finding that the City’s claims were not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
