C & S Industrial Supply Co. v. Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co.

404 S.E.2d 346, 199 Ga. App. 197, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 413
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 15, 1991
DocketA90A2354
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 404 S.E.2d 346 (C & S Industrial Supply Co. v. Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
C & S Industrial Supply Co. v. Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co., 404 S.E.2d 346, 199 Ga. App. 197, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 413 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinions

Carley, Judge.

After bringing suit against appellee-defendant, appellant-plaintiff failed to comply with certain requests for production of documents. Pursuant to appellee’s motion, the trial court entered an order compelling appellant’s production of the requested documents. When appellant failed to comply with this order, appellee filed a motion for sanctions. Only minutes before the hearing that had been scheduled on appellee’s motion, appellant filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-41 (a) and served appellee with a copy thereof. However, the trial court subsequently struck appellant’s notice of voluntary dismissal and dismissed appellant’s complaint and assessed attorney’s fees as sanctions under OCGA § 9-11-37 (b) (2) (C). It is from this order of the trial court that appellant brings this appeal.

Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-41 (a) a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss his action, without order or permission of the trial court, at any time before he rests his case. However, “ ‘ “the announcement by a trial judge of a decision that will terminate a civil case, though that decision has not been formally reduced to writing and entered, will preclude the filing of a voluntary dismissal after the announcement but before the judgment is actually entered by the trial judge. [”] [Cit.]’ [Cit.] ‘ “It is knowledge of the actual, not of the possible, result of a case which precludes the exercise of the right of dismissal.” ’ [Cit.]” Johnson v. Wade, 184 Ga. App. 675, 676 (1) (362 SE2d 469) (1987). Although the termination of appellant’s action by dismissal of its complaint was obviously a possible result of the impending hearing on appellee’s motion for sanctions, there is no evidence that appellant lhad prior knowledge that such a sanction would actually be imposed.

| There is no “bad faith” exception to a plaintiff’s right to voluntarily dismiss his action pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-41 (a). “[T]he legislative intent behind the enactment of OCGA § 9-11-41 (a) was to afford a plaintiff, faced with a contrary verdict or other untenable iposition, a second chance to litigate his suit despite the inconvenience and irritation to the defendant.” (Emphasis supplied in part.) Griggs v. Columbus Bank &c. Co., 188 Ga. App. 741, 743 (374 SE2d [198]*198347) (1988). See also Pounds v. Hosp. Auth. of Gwinnett County, 197 Ga. App. 598, 600 (2) (399 SE2d 92) (1990).

After appellant voluntarily dismissed its complaint, there was nothing pending in the trial court but appellee’s motion for sanctions pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-37 (b). Compare American Express Co. v. Baker, 192 Ga. App. 21 (1) (383 SE2d 576) (1989). If appellee wished to secure attorney’s fees based upon appellant’s asserted abuse of discovery procedures, it could have moved pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14. However, appellant’s notice of voluntary dismissal was valid and the trial court’s subsequent order striking that notice and imposing any sanctions pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-37 (b) was a nullity and must be reversed. Johnson v. Wade, supra.

Judgment reversed.

McMurray, P. J., Banke, P. J., Birdsong, P. J., Pope, Beasley and Cooper, JJ., concur. Sognier, C. J., and Andrews, J., concur in part and dissent in part.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

CHARLIE BRIDGES v. AKSHAY GUPTA
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2026
Janet Baker v. Atlantic States Insurance Company
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2020
Gallagher v. Fiderion Group, LLC
685 S.E.2d 387 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Hart v. REDMOND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
686 S.E.2d 130 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Geary v. Wilshire Credit Corp.
673 S.E.2d 15 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2009)
Mariner Health Care, Inc. v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP
638 S.E.2d 340 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2006)
Cotton v. Surrency
626 S.E.2d 148 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2006)
Collier v. D & N TRUCKING CO., LLC
614 S.E.2d 801 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2005)
Morris v. Mullis
590 S.E.2d 823 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2003)
Bunch v. Vincent
507 S.E.2d 239 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Avnet, Inc. v. WYLE LABORATORIES, INC.
461 S.E.2d 865 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1995)
Lakes v. Marriott Corp.
448 S.E.2d 203 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1994)
Lakes v. Marriott Corp.
436 S.E.2d 36 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993)
C & S Industrial Supply Co. v. Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co.
404 S.E.2d 346 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
404 S.E.2d 346, 199 Ga. App. 197, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-s-industrial-supply-co-v-proctor-gamble-paper-products-co-gactapp-1991.