Georgia Trial Lawyer Blog

A former Fulton County Sheriff’s Detention Officer was arrested last week for allegedly beating two inmates. One of those inmates died as a result. The former officer, Curtis Jerome Brown Jr. of Lithonia, has been charged with violating civil rights, making false statements to federal agents, and obstructing a federal investigation. The arrest stems from an FBI investigation concerning the use of excessive force at the Fulton County Jail.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The complaint against the officer describes two incidents in which the officer used excessive force. The first incident occurred in August 2007 in which Brown allegedly beat an inmate while handcuffed. The inmate was later found bleeding and in need of medical care. The second incident happened in March 2008. Brown is accused of beating a mentally ill inmate in his cell. When the inmate was later found, he was not breathing and was unconscious. The inmate was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead. The complaint also alleges that Brown concealed his role in the beatings during a federal grand jury in August 2008. The U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case has said that investigations of other incidents are being frustrated by jailers who refuse to tell the truth.">Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.

The complaint against the officer describes two incidents in which the officer used excessive force. The first incident occurred in August 2007 in which Brown allegedly beat an inmate while handcuffed. The inmate was later found bleeding and in need of medical care.

The second incident happened in March 2008. Brown is accused of beating a mentally ill inmate in his cell. When the inmate was later found, he was not breathing and was unconscious. The inmate was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead. The complaint also alleges that Brown concealed his role in the beatings during a federal grand jury in August 2008.

The U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case has said that investigations of other incidents are being frustrated by jailers who refuse to tell the truth.

Excessive force in custody can also lead to a successful federal civil rights lawsuit. Perhaps that's what will happen here after the criminal case is resolved.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims and people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

The Court of Appeals recently had to determine if a contractor was liable for malicious prosecution for initiating the arrest of a client who disputed a bill. The court found that the contractor was liable, since he applied for an arrest warrant and made false statements in the supporting affidavit.

In Gooch v. Tudor, Tudor contracted with Gooch to have a fence built around her property. The parties agreed that Tudor would pay $10.25 per foot of fence. After a month, the job was completed, and Gooch presented Tudor with a bill for $27,277.50. Gooch claimed Tudor stated that she did not have the money to pay. Tudor claimed Gooch refused to offer her estimates and that she was unprepared for the large bill. However, Tudor sent Gooch $10,000 as a down payment.

Gooch went to a local magistrate judge for advice upon receiving the $10,000, and as a result, Gooch sent Tudor a letter saying the magistrate would set up an appointment in his office to talk. Gooch then applied for a criminal warrant for theft by deception. Gooch also completed an affidavit with the application stating that Tudor intentionally refused to pay. The magistrate judge then set up a show-cause hearing at which time the magistrate attempted to have the parties reach an agreement. When they could not agree, the magistrate told Gooch that he would “take care of it.” Gooch executed a second affidavit at the hearing, and the magistrate issued an arrest warrant based on the affidavit. Tudor was immediately arrested and spent two nights in jail before she could post bail.

The District Attorney believed the matter was civil in nature and refused to prosecute. Gooch then brought suit for breach of contract, trover, and a notice of lis pendens against Tudor’s property. Tudor brought a counterclaim for malicious prosecution with punitive damages. A bench trial found in favor of Gooch’s breach of contract claim and Tudor’s malicious prosecution claim. The trial court awarded Gooch $27,277.50 in actual damages. Tudor was awarded $21,615 in compensatory damages and $2,500 in punitive damages.

Gooch appealed on several grounds, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. Gooch argued that Tudor failed to show he acted with malice when he applied for an arrest warrant. However, the appellate court noted that malice can be shown when a defendant knowingly gives a false statement to the police. Gooch stated in the affidavit that Tudor refused to pay. But the evidence showed that Tudor had paid $10,000 and the rest was simply in dispute. Thus, the trial court believed that she was not refusing to pay as the affidavit stated. The court noted that it does not matter if Gooch actually wanted Tudor arrested. The question is whether his actions initiated a criminal proceeding against Tudor. Gooch visited the magistrate at least twice prior to the hearing for advice and signed two affidavits to support arrest warrants. In addition, at the hearing, Gooch said he did not want Tudor arrested, but instead, he wanted the judge to force her to give him the money owed. Thus, it was clear that he initiated the criminal proceeding to force payment. It did not matter if unintended consequences resulted.

Gooch then argued that the trial court erred because the magistrate found probable cause to arrest. However, the appellate court found that to protect Gooch from liability the magistrate has to be a neutral and disinterested third-party. The evidence showed that the magistrate was actively working on Gooch’s behalf to pressure Tudor into paying. Specifically, the magistrate advised Gooch not to cash the $10,000 check and to file an application for a criminal warrant without a police report. The magistrate also had 4 or 5 ex parte meetings with Gooch between the filing of the first affidavit and the hearing. In addition, the magistrate had helped Gooch collect payments on two prior occasions. There was also evidence which showed that the magistrate knew the case was civil in nature. The District Attorney testified that the magistrate admitted this. The magistrate also attempted to mediate the parties at the hearing which is traditionally a civil practice. The law in Georgia is clear that criminal proceedings may not be used for the collection of debt, and the court noted that the magistrate should have been aware of this fact. All of this evidence pointed to the fact that Gooch was not protected by the magistrate’s finding of probable cause, since the magistrate was not a neutral party.

The Court of Appeals also found that there was sufficient evidence to award punitive damages. The court noted that the trial judge did not err when he found Gooch’s conduct was marked by malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or the entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims and people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently had to determine if certain non-disclosure and non-compete agreements were unenforceable due to their broad language. It found the covenants to be unenforceable, since the non-disclosure covenant attempted to restrict employee observations with no time limitation and the non-compete covenant failed to include specific activities.

In Global Link Logistics Inc. v. Briles, the plaintiff, Briles, signed an employment agreement in 2006 with Global Link. The agreement contained a non-disclosure and a non-compete covenant. The non-disclosure covenant prohibited Briles from revealing “the information, observations, customer and vendor relationships and data obtained by him while employed by the Company.” This covenant provided for no time limitation. The non-compete covenant prohibited Briles from engaging in any competitive business for two years after leaving Global Link, and it also prohibited him from soliciting any customers, suppliers, or employees.

Briles quit Global Link and began work for a competitor in 2007. He brought an action for injunctive and declaratory relief in regards to the covenants as well as a claim of defamation. Global Link moved to force the parties to enter into arbitration; however, the trial court held the covenants unenforceable after an evidentiary hearing. Global Link appealed that decision.

The Georgia Court of Appeals noted that covenants are only upheld when they are strictly limited in time and territory and are reasonable considering the interests of a particular business.

First, the court turned to the non-disclosure covenant. It found that the covenant prohibited Briles from using his own observations in any future job for an indefinite amount of time. Explaining that Global Link failed to provide any supporting authority for such an expansive limitation, the court found the covenant to be overbroad and unenforceable.

The court then examined the non-compete covenant. The general rule is that a non-compete covenant must specify the particular acts which a former employee is prohibited from engaging in for it to be upheld. The court reasoned that the covenant barred Briles from engaging in any competitive business without specificity, and that such a covenant could not be upheld.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims and people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

Court of Appeals upholds malicious prosecution judgment against contractor for causing a client who disputed a bill to be arrested for theft

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently had to determine if a contractor was liable for malicious prosecution for initiating the arrest of a client who disputed a bill. The court found that the contractor was liable, since he applied for an arrest warrant and made false statements in the supporting affidavit.

In Gooch v. Tudor, Tudor contracted with Gooch to have a fence built around her property. The parties agreed that Tudor would pay $10.25 per foot of fence. After a month, the job was completed, and Gooch presented Tudor with a bill for $27,277.50. Gooch claimed Tudor stated that she did not have the money to pay. Tudor claimed Gooch refused to offer her estimates and that she was unprepared for the large bill. However, Tudor sent Gooch $10,000 as a down payment.

Gooch went to a local magistrate judge for advice upon receiving the $10,000, and as a result, Gooch sent Tudor a letter saying the magistrate would set up an appointment in his office to talk. Gooch then applied for a criminal warrant for theft by deception. Gooch also completed an affidavit with the application stating that Tudor intentionally refused to pay. The magistrate judge then set up a show-cause hearing at which time the magistrate attempted to have the parties reach an agreement. When they could not agree, the magistrate told Gooch that he would “take care of it.” Gooch executed a second affidavit at the hearing, and the magistrate issued an arrest warrant based on the affidavit. Tudor was immediately arrested and spent two nights in jail before she could post bail.

The District Attorney believed the matter was civil in nature and refused to prosecute. Gooch then brought suit for breach of contract, trover, and a notice of lis pendens against Tudor’s property. Tudor brought a counterclaim for malicious prosecution with punitive damages. A bench trial found in favor of Gooch’s breach of contract claim and Tudor’s malicious prosecution claim. The trial court awarded Gooch $27,277.50 in actual damages. Tudor was awarded $21,615 in compensatory damages and $2,500 in punitive damages.

Gooch appealed on several grounds, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. First, Gooch argued that he was entitled to summary judgment on Tudor’s claim for malicious prosecution. However, the Court of Appeals found that it is too late to review a summary judgment once a judgment has been rendered. Gooch next argued that Tudor failed to show he acted with malice when he applied for an arrest warrant. However, the appellate court noted that malice can be shown when a defendant knowingly gives a false statement to the police. Gooch stated in the affidavit that Tudor refused to pay. But the evidence showed that Tudor had paid $10,000 and the rest was simply in dispute. Thus, the trial court believed that she was not refusing to pay as the affidavit stated. The court noted that it does not matter if Gooch actually wanted Tudor arrested. The question is whether his actions initiated a criminal proceeding against Tudor. Gooch visited the magistrate at least twice prior to the hearing for advice and signed two affidavits to support arrest warrants. In addition, at the hearing, Gooch said he did not want Tudor arrested, but instead, he wanted the judge to force her to give him the money owed. Thus, it was clear that he initiated the criminal proceeding to force payment. It did not matter if unintended consequences resulted so long as he initiated a criminal proceeding.

Gooch also argued that he was not liable since Tudor could not prove a lack of probable cause to accuse Tudor of theft. Again, the court reasoned that Gooch knew his statements in the affidavits were untrue, and that he only made the statements to pressure Tudor into paying. As a result, the trial court was correct in finding that there was no probable cause to arrest.

Gooch next argued that the trial court erred because the magistrate found probable cause. However, the appellate court found that to protect Gooch from liability the magistrate has to be a neutral and disinterested third-party. The evidence showed that the magistrate was actively working on Gooch’s behalf to pressure Tudor into paying. Specifically, the magistrate advised Gooch not to cash the $10,000 check and to file an application for a criminal warrant without a police report. The magistrate also had 4 or 5 ex parte meetings with Gooch between the filing of the first affidavit and the hearing. In addition, the magistrate had helped Gooch collect payments on two prior occasions. There was also evidence which showed that the magistrate knew the case was civil in nature. The District Attorney testified that the magistrate admitted this. The magistrate also attempted to mediate the parties at the hearing which is traditionally a civil practice. The law in Georgia is clear that criminal proceedings may not be used for the collection of debt, and the court noted that the magistrate should have been aware of this fact. All of this evidence pointed to the fact that Gooch was not protected by the magistrate’s finding of probable cause, since the magistrate was not a neutral party.

The Court of Appeals also found that there was sufficient evidence to award punitive damages. The court noted that the trial judge did not err when he found Gooch’s conduct was marked by malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or the entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims and people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.

Recently, the Court of Appeals had to determine whether the plaintiff’s failure to originally identify the correct governmental agencies in a personal injury suit against the state constituted grounds for dismissal. The court held that the correct standard is to determine if the plaintiffs adequately investigated their claims or if the state had suffered prejudice. In doing so, it vacated the trial court’s ruling which simply dismissed the claims for not strictly complying with the statute which waives state sovereign immunity.

In Young v. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, the plaintiff, Young, was injured at the Georgia National Fairgrounds in Perry, Georgia. Young brought suit for negligence and filed ante-litem notices with the Department of Administrative Services and the Georgia National Fairground which is a necessary step in suing the state for a tort. Upon realizing these were not the correct agencies sometime later, Young filed suit against the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Georgia Agricultural Exposition Authority (GAEA) which were the correct agencies. The DNR and GAEA moved for dismissal, since Young had failed to identify the DNR and GAEA as the target agencies as required by statute. The trial court granted the motion by reasoning that a plaintiff must strictly comply with the statute which waives the state’s sovereign immunity. The court further explained that the failure to include the DNR and GAEA rendered the original anti-litem notices invalid, and the plaintiff could not remedy the problem by later attaching the correct agencies.

The Court of Appeals disagreed. It held that the trial court should have conducted an inquiry into whether Young adequately investigated his claim or whether the state had suffered prejudice as a result of originally naming the wrong agencies. In doing so, the judgment was vacated and sent back to the trial court for the correct analysis to be utilized.

Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims and people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine. Our firm is also listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell.