Kim v. State of Georgia

The defendants were not entitled to a jury trial in the state's nuisance action, so the trial court's consolidating the hearing on the state's application for an interlocutory injunction with its application for a permanent injunction did not abrogate any right to a jury trial.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The State of Georgia filed a petition to abate a nuisance and for injunctive relief against Myung Kim as the owner and operator of the Hong Kong Spa. She contends that the trial court erred in consolidating the interlocutory and final hearing for injunctive relief. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in advancing the trial on the merits and consolidating it with the hearing on the interlocutory injunction, we affirm.

The district attorney filed the petition in April 1999 against Kim, the owner of the property where the spa was located, and the premises, alleging that the Hong Kong Spa was used for unlawful sexual purposes and thus constituted a public nuisance under OCGA § 41-3-1. The property owner moved to add Jun Kim and Sonia Scheibe as necessary parties and filed a cross-claim against them for breach of the lease agreement. A hearing for an interlocutory injunction was held on May 10, but was continued until Scheibe could be served. After she was served by publication, a hearing was held on August 9. At that hearing, the state moved to consolidate the hearing for an interlocutory injunction with the final hearing on the merits. The Kims opposed consolidation on the grounds that they were entitled to a jury trial on the nuisance claim; they contended that an action under § 41-3-1 was an action of law, unlike the injunction claim. Concluding that they were not entitled to a jury trial on the nuisance claim, the trial court ruled that it would advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing on the interlocutory injunction, but severed the contract claim because the parties were entitled to a jury trial on that cross claim.

Kim v. State of Georgia

The defendants were not entitled to a jury trial in the state's nuisance action, so the trial court's consolidating the hearing on the state's application for an interlocutory injunction with its application for a permanent injunction did not abrogate any right to a jury trial.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report