The Atlanta Humane Society AHS provided animal control services for Fulton County and the City of Atlanta. During a television news investigation, Barbara Harkins, a former AHS employee, made several statements which the TV station broadcast and which were critical of AHS’s methods and procedures and of its executive director, Bill Garrett. Thereafter, Kathi Mills also criticized AHS and Garrett Appellants in a series of statements posted on an internet message board. Appellants brought these defamation actions in the Superior Court of Cobb County against Harkins and in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County against Mills Appellees, but failed to verify the complaints pursuant to the anti-SLAPP Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation statute. OCGA § 9-11-11.1 b. The trial courts denied motions to dismiss, because Appellants amended their complaints so as to provide the verifications. The Cobb County court also denied a second motion to dismiss which was based on the substantive contention that Appellants unlawfully initiated the suit in response to Harkins’ exercise of her right to free speech. The Gwinnett County court held that any claim by Mills “that OCGA § 9-11-11.1 grants to her substantive rights, rather than mere procedural guarantees, which this Court must determine in a preliminary manner prior to this case proceeding to trial is without merit. Cit.” In the same order, the Gwinnett County court also granted summary judgment against AHS, finding it to be a governmental entity which cannot bring an action for defamation, and denied the motion for summary judgment as to Garrett, but found that he was a limited-purpose public figure with regard to this controversy.
On interlocutory appeal by Harkins, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, “despite compliance with the procedural verification requirements, a claim may still be dismissed based on the substantive protection that the anti-SLAPP statute provides for persons who exercise their right to free speech.” Harkins v. Atlanta Humane Society , 264 Ga. App. 356, 358 1 590 SE2d 737 2003. On the same basis, the Court of Appeals also reversed the order denying Mills’ motion to dismiss. Atlanta Humane Society v. Mills , 264 Ga. App. 597 591 SE2d 423 2003. In both cases, the Court of Appeals directed the trial court, upon receipt of the remittitur, to dismiss the complaint because the undisputed facts of record showed that Appellees had a substantive right to comment on this matter of public concern. Harkins v. Atlanta Humane Society , supra at 360 2; Atlanta Humane Society v. Mills , supra. The Court of Appeals further held that the summary judgment rulings with respect to the claims against Mills were moot. Atlanta Humane Society v. Mills , supra at 598.
