Viking Fence Company, LLC v. Charles Denyer and Megan Denyer

Jan 01, 2014

OUTCOME: Judgment for clients on the pleadings

A fencing contractor acknowledged to our clients that the problems and mistakes that occurred during construction of a fence on their property amounted to “a disaster.” Nevertheless, he still sued them ... for libel when they quoted from his letter to them in online reviews they posted regarding his company’s performance. Counts Law Group won a judgment on the pleadings, referencing a voluminous record of cases protecting a consumer’s right to voice an opinion of the service received.

Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, LLC v. Christopher G. Herman

Jan 01, 2014

OUTCOME: Claim against client dismissed

Successful use of an anti-SLAPP defense in a libel case involving a whistleblower’s emails led the plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss their claim against our client. Mr. Herman was a former employee of ... the plaintiff who reported to federal officials that plaintiffs made it a practice to illegally cut out joint venture partners after securing significant government contracts. Counts Law Group argued that the defendant’s emails to federal officials regarding a $25 million Department of State contract in Uganda were protected under anti-SLAPP, and the trial court emphatically agreed, prompting the dismissal.

Amy Barnes v. Cobb County et al.

Jan 01, 2014

OUTCOME: Settlement in favor of client

Amy Barnes was biking to the store for butter. She became upset at the way police officers were detaining a burglary suspect and yelled an epithet at them. They abandoned the suspect to chase after Ms. ... Barnes, arrested her and jailed her for nearly 24 hours. Counts Law Group helped secure a dismissal of the criminal charge in State Court and then pursued a free speech claim in federal district court that concluded in 2014 with a $100,000 settlement in favor of Ms. Barnes.

Gilbert v. Mickell

Jun 06, 2013

OUTCOME: Case led to changes in state rules (favoring client) for vanity license plates

Represented plaintiff in federal court suit who sought prestige license plate tags and was denied because Georgia Department of Driver Services had determined the requested tags (ex. 4GAYLIB) were obsc ... ene. (2013)

Caldwell v. State of Georgia

Dec 18, 2010

OUTCOME: Dismissed case after favorable Georgia Supreme Court ruling

Represented plaintiff with Huntington’s Disease who sought comfort from a right-to-die group. Filed lawsuit challenging state statute outlawing people from speaking publicly about assisted suicide. (20 ... 10) Dismissed suit after Ga. Supreme Court ruled Ga. Law unconstitutional in 2012

Zeigler v. FOX Broadcasting

Jan 01, 2010

OUTCOME: Granted motion for summary judgment because of lack of evidence establishing an employer-employee relationship, without any discovery being conducted

Bodana v. Fox News

Jan 01, 2010

OUTCOME: Case dismissed without engaging in formal discovery

Client sued for libel after its publication of an AP Wire story about a local veterinarian who was investigated by the State Board for violations of various health and safety regulations. Plaintiff pr ... omptly dismissed the action after detailed verified answer was filed raising anti-SLAPP privilege and the AP wire defense.

Hindu Temple and Community center of Georgia v. New World Communications

Sep 01, 2009

OUTCOME: Secured Dismissal within two weeks of filing

-Secured dismissal of two federal RICO lawsuits against broadcast client and a reporter within two weeks following threats of attorney’s fees and sanctions for frivolous litigation.

Boxcar Development v. New World Communications

May 01, 2009

OUTCOME: Dismissal pursuant Georgia's Anti-SLAPP Statute

On February 8, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, fraudulent misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from FOX 5’s investi ... gative reports about Plaintiff Hoffman and his principal business, Plaintiff Boxcar Development Corp. In the final report, the lead investigative reporter commented that the Georgia Secretary of State’s securities division had begun investigating Hoffman based on FOX5’s earlier news reports. FOX5 argued that Plaintiffs had filed the Complaint seeking to punish it for reporting true facts to the public and the government about Plaintiffs, namely that Plaintiff Jerome D. Hoffman had a past felony conviction, he was engaging in questionable business practices in Georgia, and was the focus of a government investigation. Ultimately, Plaintiffs convinced the Court that the allegations in this case were based on an “act” that fell within Georgia’s anti-SLAPP statute. Plaintiffs’ Complaint contained a verification signed by Plaintiff Hoffman stating “the allegations in the above-captioned Complaint are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.” Hoffman’s verification, however, did not include requisite verification pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-11-11.1(b). Plaintiffs’ counsel filed no verification. In its Verified Answer, Defendant FOX 5 gave notice that Plaintiffs had failed to comply with the prerequisites of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1(b). Despite proper notice, Plaintiffs never filed the proper verifications required by O.C.G.A. 9-11-11.1(b). After the ten days that Plaintiffs were statutorily permitted to cure, Defendants filed and served upon Plaintiffs’ counsel their Motion to Dismiss SLAPP Suit and requested an expedited hearing pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-11-11.1(d). The Court scheduled the hearing within the thirty (30) days required by statute and the ten (10) day window to cure had long since expired. The Court’s Decision First and foremost, the Superior Court found that the anti-SLAPP statue applied to a media defendant and focused on how the statute provides an early disposition mechanism for First Amendment cases. See O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1(d); see also Browns Mill Development Co. v. Denton, 275 Ga. 2, 6 (2002) (“intent of the statute is to encourage the exercise of free speech and afford a procedural protection to acts of communication on public issues”). The Court then emphasized that two of the statute’s most important elements are the provisions requiring detailed verifications and an accelerated hearing on the motion to dismiss. Indeed, the Court held that a dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with O.C.G.A. 9-11-11.1(b) is essential to promoting the entire purpose of Georgia’s anti-SLAPP statute. The Court next explained its analysis as to how the statue applied. According to this Georgia Superior Court, a defendant who comments upon and reports about potential illegal or wrongful conduct or activity that is made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a government entity has engaged in an “act” under Georgia’s anti-SLAPP statute. See O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1. The Court further emphasized Georgia law holding that even statements made prior to the initiation of a government investigation can qualify as an “act” entitled to protection as Georgia’s anti-SLAPP statute has been construed to apply to statements made to a local television station that sparked an official investigation. Although the Georgia appellate courts have restricted the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute to those “acts” that seek to influence or comment upon government proceedings, this Court specifically found that an investigative news report is a medium that, by its nature, seek

M.S. Koly and Delcath Systems, Inc., v. Elizabeth Enney, Case No. 3:06-CV-68-JTC

Mar 09, 2009

OUTCOME: 12(c) motion for judgment on pleadings

A Georgia federal court judge just approved settlement of $545,000 paid to my client, Elizabeth Enney, who was the defendant in a case where we first won a 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. B ... ecause my client felt wronged by the filing of frivolous litigation by powerful and deep-pocketed Plaintiffs, we appealed the denial or our motion for attorney fees and did indeed obtain a reversal of the lower district court's denial of our motion for attorney fees. The case involved an opinion defense and the 11th Circuit found the Plaintiffs, not just the lawyers, should be sanctioned. Ultimately, there were many folks at fault for both the initial filing of the frivolous litigation and the failure to pay insurance coverage to defend, which resulted in a joint payment to my client of really over $600,000 since Trumbull Insurance Company paid the cost of our appeal on the attorney fees issue. Here is a link to the article about the consent order affirming a $545,000 settlement award after the case was remended back to the district court: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2009/03/11/rolls_royce_settlement.html If you are interested in the original 11th Circuit decision, I have attached a copy for you here. Also, a good article providing the background on the appellate decision can be found at http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1206357956505