CELLCO PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF VALDOSTA GEORGIA

M.D. Georgia

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF VALDOSTA GEORGIA

DecidedOctober 19, 2021

Docket7:20-cv-00050

StatusUnknown

This text of CELLCO PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF VALDOSTA GEORGIA (CELLCO PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF VALDOSTA GEORGIA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF VALDOSTA GEORGIA, (M.D. Ga. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a : VERIZON WIRELESS, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:20-CV-00050 (WLS) : CITY OF VALDOSTA, GEORGIA, : et al., : : Defendants. :

ORDER Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Vivian Miller-Cody, Sandra Tooley, Joseph Vickers, Eric Howard, Timothy H. Carroll, Andrew Gibbs, and Ben Norton in their official capacities as members of the City Council for the City of Valdosta, Georgia (hereinafter the “Individual Defendants”). (Doc. 30.) Therein, the Individual Defendants ask that Plaintiff’s claims against them be dismissed with prejudice as these Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity. Id. Plaintiff timely responded consenting to an order dismissing its claims against the Individual Defendants. (Doc. 39.) As background, Plaintiff Verizon Wireless brought suit against the City of Valdosta, Georgia, the City Council for Valdosta, and the Individual Defendants for the denial of Plaintiff’s Application for a Conditional Use Permit. (Doc. 1.) It is well-established that city council members are “entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken in furtherance of their duties as members of the City Council.” Finch v. Vernon, 877 F.2d 1497, 1505 (11th Cir. 1989); see also Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 49 (1998) (“[L]ocal legislators are likewise absolutely immune from suit . . . for their legislative activities.”). Plaintiff alleges that the Individual Defendants voted to deny its Application (Doc. 1 at 18), but “‘the vote of a city councilman constitutes an exercise of legislative decision-making,’ which entitles such city-council member to absolute immunity since voting is a legislative function.” Hudgins v. Ashburn, 890 F.2d 396, 407 n.20 (11th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). Therefore, and because Plaintiff consents, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against the Individual Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED, this 19th day of October 2021. /s/ W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a : VERIZON WIRELESS, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:20-CV-00050 (WLS) : CITY OF VALDOSTA, GEORGIA, : et al., : : Defendants. :

ORDER Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Vivian Miller-Cody, Sandra Tooley, Joseph Vickers, Eric Howard, Timothy H. Carroll, Andrew Gibbs, and Ben Norton in their official capacities as members of the City Council for the City of Valdosta, Georgia (hereinafter the “Individual Defendants”). (Doc. 30.) Therein, the Individual Defendants ask that Plaintiff’s claims against them be dismissed with prejudice as these Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity. Id. Plaintiff timely responded consenting to an order dismissing its claims against the Individual Defendants. (Doc. 39.) As background, Plaintiff Verizon Wireless brought suit against the City of Valdosta, Georgia, the City Council for Valdosta, and the Individual Defendants for the denial of Plaintiff’s Application for a Conditional Use Permit. (Doc. 1.) It is well-established that city council members are “entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken in furtherance of their duties as members of the City Council.” Finch v. Vernon, 877 F.2d 1497, 1505 (11th Cir. 1989); see also Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 49 (1998) (“[L]ocal legislators are likewise absolutely immune from suit . . . for their legislative activities.”). Plaintiff alleges that the Individual Defendants voted to deny its Application (Doc. 1 at 18), but “‘the vote of a city councilman constitutes an exercise of legislative decision-making,’ which entitles such city-council member to absolute immunity since voting is a legislative function.” Hudgins v. Ashburn, 890 F.2d 396, 407 n.20 (11th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). Therefore, and because Plaintiff consents, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against the Individual Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED, this 19th day of October 2021. /s/ W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF VALDOSTA GEORGIA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cellco-partnership-v-city-of-valdosta-georgia-gamd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack