RTT Assocs., Inc. v. Ga. Dep't of Labor

• Decision Date: 14 July 2015
• Docket Number: No. A15A0792.,A15A0792.
• Parties: RTT ASSOCIATES, INC. v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

333 Ga.App. 173

775 S.E.2d 644

RTT ASSOCIATES, INC.

v.GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.

No. A15A0792.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

July 14, 2015.

Certiorari Granted Oct. 19, 2015.

Balch & Bingham, Christopher Scott Anulewicz, Joshua Michael Moore, Atlanta, for Appellant.

Elizabeth Anne Harris, Asst. Atty., Gen., Samuel S. Olens, Atty. Gen., for Appellee.

Opinion

ELLINGTON, Presiding Judge.

RTT Associates, Inc. brought this action in the Superior Court of Fulton County against the Georgia Department of Labor for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing. After a hearing, the trial court determined that RTT failed to show that the State had waived sovereign immunity and granted the Department's motion for summary judgment on that basis. RTT challenges that ruling on appeal, along with the denial of its motion for judgment on the pleadings. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the trial court's denial of RTT's motion for judgment on the pleadings and reverse the grant of summary judgment in the Department's favor.

1. RTT contends that its claims constitute an action ex contractu for the breach of a written contract and, therefore, that the trial court erred in ruling that the State is entitled to sovereign immunity. It is undisputed that the parties entered into a written contract for RTT to develop a software program for the Department and that the Department refused to pay RTT the full contract price. In its complaint, RTT alleged, inter alia, that the Department breached the contract by refusing to compensate RTT for work performed under the contract and by purporting to terminate the contract for cause without giving RTT an opportunity to cure its default. In granting the Department's motion for summary judgment on the basis of sovereign immunity, the trial court noted that the parties' written contract provided that it would terminate on a specified date, which had passed. The trial court held that, as a result, RTT could only maintain an action for breach of that written contract by producing a written extension or amendment that contained all of the terms required to constitute a valid contract, including consideration for extending or amending the contract and the parties' mutual assent to any such changes. The trial court determined that RTT had failed to establish any written extension or amendment and ruled that RTT's claim was therefore not one for breach of a written contract for which the State had waived its sovereign immunity. RTT contends that, at a minimum, a material question of fact exists regarding whether the parties agreed to extend the written contract and that the trial court therefore erred in finding as a matter of law that the Department is immune from suit. We agree.

On the subject of sovereign immunity, the Georgia Constitution of 1983 provides that “sovereign immunity extends to the State and all of its departments and agencies[,]” except as otherwise provided in Art. 1, § 2, ¶ IX or unless the General Assembly in an Act “specifically provides that sovereign immunity is thereby waived and the extent of such waiver.” Ga. Const.1983, Art. 1, § 2, ¶ IX (e). “[S]overeign immunity of a State agency is not an affirmative defense, going to the merits of the case; instead it raises the issue of the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction to try the case.” (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Dept. of Transp. v. Kovalcik, 328 Ga.App. 185, 189 –190(1)(b), 761 S.E.2d 584 (2014). “Jurisdiction [to afford the relief sought] either exists or does not exist without regard to the merits of the case.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Dept. of Transp. v. Dupree, 256 Ga.App. 668, 671(1), 570 S.E.2d 1 (2002). Further, because “immunity from suit is a privilege that is subject to waiver by the State,” rather than “an affirmative defense that must be established by the party seeking its protection,” the claimant, as the party seeking to benefit from the waiver, has the burden of establishing the waiver. (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Tift County Sch. Dist. v. Martinez, 331 Ga.App. 423, 425 –426(1), 771 S.E.2d 117 (2015).

When a court either has or lacks subject matter jurisdiction, regardless of any conflict in the facts that go to the merits of the case, the trial court should determine whether it has jurisdiction to afford the relief sought as a threshold issue at the outset. Dept. of Transp. v. Dupree, 256 Ga.App. at 671 –672(1), 570 S.E.2d 1. Sometimes, however, the determination of subject matter jurisdiction and waiver of sovereign immunity is so factually intertwined with determination of the merits of the case that the trial court may defer final determination of such issues until after the presentation of all the evidence at trial. Id. at 672(1)(a), 570 S.E.2d 1.

We review de novo a trial court's ruling on the issue of whether it lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which is a question of law, but factual findings by the trial court in support of its legal decision are sustained if there is evidence authorizing them. Dept. of Transp. v. Kovalcik, 328 Ga.App. at 186, 761 S.E.2d 584 ; Dept. of Corrections v. James, 312 Ga.App. 190, 193, 718 S.E.2d 55 (2011).

This case concerns the constitutional provision that the State's defense of sovereign immunity is waived “as to any action ex contractu for the breach of any written contract[.]” Ga. Const. 1983, Art. 1, § 2, ¶ IX (c).¹ As a result, “to overcome the Department's assertion of sovereign immunity, [RTT] has the burden of showing that the contract sought to be enforced is in writing and contains all of the terms necessary to constitute a valid contract.” (Citations omitted.) Dept. of Community Health v. Data Inquiry, LLC, 313 Ga.App. 683, 685(1), 722 S.E.2d 403 (2012).

The record shows the following undisputed facts. The Department hired RTT in March 2012 to develop software for the Department to use in implementing the Work Opportunity Tax Credit program.² RTT and the Department entered into a written contract, State of Georgia State Entity Standard Contract Form, Contract No. GL12005–2717, which was signed on behalf of both parties. The contract provides for a maximum payment by the Department to RTT of $247,422.68 and specified a “Date of Completion” of June 30, 2012. The contract further provides that it “shall begin and end on the dates specified in the State Entity Standard Contract Form unless terminated earlier in accordance with the applicable terms and conditions.” The contract provides for immediate termination under certain circumstances, termination upon written notice under certain circumstances, and termination for cause in the case of certain defaults by RTT. In the event of a default by RTT, the contract requires the Department to give RTT written notice of the default and specify a time period in which it may remedy the default. The contract also provides that it “may be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the parties.”

The work to be performed by RTT, and corresponding payment by the Department, was divided into four “Milestones.” On March 8, 2012, the Department submitted a partial payment of $82,474.23 to RTT. RTT failed to deliver fully functional WOTC software by June 30, 2012, the “Date of Completion” specified in Contract No. GL12005–2717.

During the latter half of 2012 and continuing into early 2013, the Department continued to work with RTT in an effort to allow RTT to deliver the WOTC software. The Department received multiple editions of the WOTC software from RTT, tested each new edition of the software, and determined that it was not fully functional. In a letter to RTT dated April 3, 2013, the Department notified RTT that it was in breach and noncompliance of Contract No. GL12005–2717 and that the contract was thereby “terminated immediately.” In the letter, the Department stated that the contract had been “extended multiple times [after] June 30, 2012[,] to allow [RTT] to complete and deliver satisfactory WOTC Processing System to [the Department].” On the same date, in a letter to Evergreen National Indemnity Company, the Department notified the bond company that Contract No. GL12005–2717 had been “extended multiple times [after] June 30, 2012[,] to allow completion and delivery of a Contract compliant WOTC processing System to [the Department]” and that, as of the date of the letter, “the Contract terms have not been met by RTT.” In that letter, the Department notified the bond company of the costs it expected to incur to bring an alternative product on-line. According to a Department employee, RTT's software was never fully functional and did not meet the requirements of the contract and, at a meeting on May 7, 2013, the Department informed RTT of that fact, that the Department had decided not to use RTT's software, and that the contract was terminated.

On July 10, 2013, RTT filed its complaint for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing. The Department asserted a counterclaim for breach of contract, alleging that RTT breached the contract by failing to complete and deliver the work required under Milestone 2, for which the Department had issued advance payment, and by failing to timely deliver fully functional software that met the terms of the contract.

In granting the Department's motion for summary judgment, the trial court determined that RTT could only show that its claims constitute an action ex contractu for the breach of a written contract, and thereby satisfy its burden of proving a waiver of sovereign immunity, “by establishing a written extension or amendment to the Contract” between the parties, Contract No. GL12005–2717, under which RTT agreed to deliver the WOTC software by June 30, 2012. The court found that RTT failed to do so and that, “[a]t best, the record evidences [the Department's] willingness to not hold [RTT] to the delivery deadline...