Ga. Ass'n of Prof'l Process Servers v. Jackson
Decision Date | 16 October 2017 |
Docket Number | S17A1079 |
Parties | GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL PROCESS SERVERS et al. v. JACKSON et al., Sheriff. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Parks, Chesin & Walbert, Allan L. Parks, Jr., Michael T. Foust, for appellants. Steven E. Rosenberg, Ashley J. Palmer ; Carothers & Mitchell, Richard A. Carothers, Rebecca J. Schmidt ; Deborah L. Dance, Lauren S. Bruce ; O'Quinn & Cronin, Donald A. Cronin, Jr. ; Jarrard & Davis, Kenneth E. Jarrard, Kenneth P. Robin ; Freeman, Mathis & Gary, Jack R. Hancock, A. Ali Sabzevari ; Nikisha L. McDonald, for appellees.
In this appeal, we consider the application of OCGA § 9–11–4.1, providing for statewide certified process servers. The Georgia Association of Professional Process Servers and several of its members, who are private process servers, (collectively, "the Association") filed this action seeking mandamus, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief against the sheriffs of Fulton, Cobb, Gwinnett, DeKalb, Clayton, Forsyth, and Paulding Counties (collectively, "the Sheriffs"). In its petition, the Association alleged that the Sheriffs have conspired to thwart the use of certified process servers statewide, and have wrongfully failed to consider members' individual petitions to become certified process servers under OCGA § 9–11–4.1, thus rendering the Code section null and of no effect. The Sheriffs responded that the Code section explicitly gives them the power to make a threshold decision whether to permit certified process servers to serve process in their counties. After discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Sheriffs and denied the Association's motion, finding that under a plain reading of the Code section, the Association was not entitled to any of the relief sought. From this order, the Association appeals.1
The trial court should not have ruled on the merits of the Association's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Sheriffs in their official capacities, because those claims are barred by sovereign immunity. Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the trial court's order and remand for dismissal. Because the trial court correctly granted summary judgment as to the Association's other claims, we affirm the remainder of the trial court's order.
As the trial court correctly observed, the relevant provisions of OCGA § 9–11–4.1 are found in paragraph (a) and paragraph (h) (1):
(Emphasis supplied.) The trial court found that the plain language of the statute barred declaratory and injunctive relief.2 The court also found that mandamus is inappropriate because the members of the Association have an alternative course of action: "seeking appointments from the various courts of the State to become permanent process servers as provided in OCGA § 9–11–4 (c) (4)." Alternatively, it held that mandamus is not appropriate because the plain language of the statute gives the Sheriffs the discretion to choose whether to allow certified process servers, and the court cannot force them to do so.3 Finally, the trial court denied appellants' request for attorney fees. This appeal followed.
1. Despite the ruling on the merits in the Sheriffs' favor on the Association's claims for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment, as a threshold matter for our analysis, it is important to note that the Sheriffs have raised the defense of sovereign immunity. To the extent applicable, this defense would preclude the trial court's consideration of the merits of these claims. This Court has repeatedly ruled on the scope of sovereign immunity under the Georgia Constitution, finding that it bars claims for injunctive relief, Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources v. Center for a Sustainable Coast, 294 Ga. 593, 596 (2), 755 S.E.2d 184 (2014), and claims for declaratory judgment, Olvera v. Univ. System of Ga. Bd. of Regents, 298 Ga. 425, 427, 782 S.E.2d 436 (2016), even if based upon constitutional claims. Lathrop v. Deal, 301 Ga. 408, 425 (III), 801 S.E.2d 867 (2017).
(Citation, punctuation, and footnote omitted.) McConnell v. Georgia Dept. of Labor, 302 Ga. 18, 18–19, 805 S.E.2d 79 (2017) (Case No. S16G1786, decided September 13, 2017.) A Abushmais v. Erby, 282 Ga. 619, 622 (3), 652 S.E.2d 549 (2007).
Because the Association's claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief are barred by sovereign immunity under Lathrop, Olvera, and Sustainable Coast, supra, the trial court should have dismissed those claims. We therefore vacate that portion of the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.5
2. As we have noted before, however, Lathrop, supra, 301 Ga. at 434 (III) (C), 801 S.E.2d 867. We therefore consider whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the merits with respect to the Association's mandamus claims.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 735 (2) (b), 755 S.E.2d 760. Moreover, when the law requires an official to exercise discretion, mandamus will lie to compel that discretion be exercised, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Albany v. Stanford, A18A0699
...either in the trial court, in a collateral attack on a judgment, or in an appeal." Ga. Assn. of Professional Process Servers v. Jackson , 302 Ga. 309, 312 (1), 806 S.E.2d 550 (2017) (citation and punctuation omitted). Here, the City raised the issue of sovereign immunity in its answer and o......
-
Boyd v. Neal
...to perform." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 364-65 (2) (B), 801 S.E.2d 9. See also Ga. Assn. of Professional Process Servers v. Jackson , 302 Ga. 309, 312 (2), 806 S.E.2d 550 (2017) ("For mandamus to issue, the law must not only authorize the act to be done, but must require its......
- Shelley v. Town of Tyrone
-
Bray v. Watkins
... ... See, e.g., Ga ... Assn. of Professional Process Servers v. Jackson , 302 ... ...