Ledford v. Meyer

• Decision Date: 06 April 1982
• Docket Number: No. 38309,38309
• Citation: 290 S.E.2d 908,249 Ga. 407
• Parties: LEDFORD, et al. v. MEYER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 908

290 S.E.2d 908

249 Ga. 407

LEDFORD, et al. v. MEYER.

No. 38309.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 6, 1982.

Rehearing Denied May 25, 1982.

Lennie F. Davis, City Atty., E. H. Polleys, Jr., Associate City Atty., Albert W. Stubbs, Joseph L. Waldrep, Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, Columbus, for Robert E. Ledford et al.

James D. Patrick, Columbus, for Denise Meyer.

SMITH, Justice.

Appellee, a young female firefighter, brought an action for libel and slander. She claims a right of recovery under state law as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After considerable discovery, appellants moved to have the recast complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A hearing was held on the motion and the trial court entered the following order: "Defendants Motion to Dismiss ... coming on for hearing this date, and it appearing that Plaintiff's Recast Complaint does state a claim for relief and that sufficient facts of record exist to support said Complaint, and it appearing to the Court that no sufficient grounds pursuant to § 12 of the Civil Practice Act exists for granting said Motion, it is Ordered that the Motion is hereby denied."

Although a certificate of immediate review was granted by the trial court, appellants' application for interlocutory appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals. On certiorari, we granted the application.

1. The first question to be decided in this appeal is whether the order appealed from is a denial of a motion for summary judgment or a denial of a motion to dismiss. The question arises because the trial court's order seems to indicate that "facts of record" were considered. See Hill v. Davis, 241 Ga. 233, 244 S.E.2d 852 (1978). CPA § 12(b) (Code Ann. § 81A-112(b)) provides: "... If, on a motion ... to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in section 81A-156, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by section 81A-156."

In the instant case, the recast complaint contains broad allegations as to the allegedly defamatory statements. At the hearing, appellee defended the complaint on the ground that "notice pleading requires no more." In addition, appellee noted, the defense had learned through the discovery process of the specific statements upon which the action was based. The trial court then inquired as to where the allegedly defamatory statements appeared in the record. The statements were pointed out, and the trial court denied the motion on the ground that the complaint provided adequate notice of the claims and "that's all you have to do."

From this hearing, it is manifestly clear that the trial court was not intending to render a summary judgment. We note that appellee specifically objected to any attempt to convert the motion into one for summary judgment on the ground that "we're still engaged in the discovery process" and have not had a proper opportunity to prepare for such a motion. See Jaynes v. Douglas, 147 Ga.App. 678, 250 S.E.2d 14 (1978).

We shall treat the motion to dismiss as did the trial court--as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Atlanta Associates v. Westminster Properties, Inc., 242 Ga. 462, 249 S.E.2d 252 (1978); Brackett v. H. R. Block & Co., 119 Ga.App. 144, 166 S.E.2d 369 (1969).

2. "Under the Civil Practice Act a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted should not be granted unless averments in the complaint disclose with certainty that plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts that could be proven in support of the claim." Hardy v. Gordon, 146 Ga.App. 656, 657, 247 S.E.2d 166 (1978).

"While conclusions may not generally be used in affidavits to support or oppose summary judgment motions [Cit.], conclusions may generally be pleaded under the Civil Practice Act. 'Under this "notice" theory of pleading it is immaterial whether a pleading states "conclusions" or "facts" as long as fair notice is given, and the statement of claim is short and plain.' [Cit.] '[T]he true test is whether the pleading gives fair notice and states the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly, and not whether as an abstract matter it states "conclusions" or "facts".' [Cit.] '[T]here are no prohibitions in the rules against pleading conclusions and, if pleaded, they may be considered in determining whether a complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief. It is immaterial whether an allegation is one of fact or conclusion if the complaint effectively states a claim for relief.' 1 Kooman, Federal Civil Practice, 250. Accord, Davis & Shulman's Georgia Practice & Procedure § 2-5 (4th Ed. 1975)." Guthrie v. Monumental Properties, 141 Ga.App. 21, 23, 232 S.E.2d 369 (1977).

Applying the above standards to appellee's complaint, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. See Holloway v. Dougherty County School System, 157 Ga.App. 251, 277 S.E.2d 251 (1981); Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093, 1100-1101 (9th Cir. 1981).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur except CLARKE, J., concurs specially and JORDAN, C. J., and MARSHALL and...