In the Matter of Hitomi Nakamura, an Attorney.

Georgia Supreme Court clarifies that restrictive covenants may be enforceable without express geographic terms if they are reasonable in time, area, and scope

In the Matter of Steven C. Goldberg, an Attorney.

Defendants moved to dismiss a petition for writ of mandamus and complaint by plaintiffs seeking compel a decision on Iranian plaintiff's K-1 visa application, which had been refused under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for administrative processing.

In the Matter of Dianne E. Laurenzo, an Attorney.

Defendants, a city and its mayor, moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding defendants' regulatory scheme governing the hosting of public events. The court denied the motion, holding that plaintiffs' assertions regarding defendants' indecipherably opaque and unsubstantiated permitting requirements plausibly alleged First Amendment violations regarding use of a public park, marching in streets, and placing banners on city-controlled utility poles.

Defendant moved to amend his pro se petition to open judgment. The court denied the motion where defendant, after obtaining counsel, offered no new arguments beyond those already considered and rejected by a prior court which had denied his petition in the interim.

Appellants appealed the court's orders finding them in contempt and awarding appellees compensatory and coercive sanctions. The court concluded that its orders should be affirmed where appellants explicitly and repeatedly violated an agreed and stipulated order regarding arbitration between the parties and continued to defy the court while failing to provide complete discovery regarding the amount of sanctions to be imposed.

Defendant appealed an order appointing a substitute arbitrator to determine damages in a dispute with plaintiffs.

Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint alleging retaliation and wrongful termination.