Center for a Sustainable Coast, Inc. v. Ga Dnr

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: March 17, 2014
• Docket: A12A1059
• Status: Published

Opinion

FIRST DIVISION PHIPPS, C. J., ELLINGTON, P. J., and DILLARD, J.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/

March 17, 2014

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A12A1059. CENTER FOR A SUSTAINABLE COAST, INC. et al. v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

ELLINGTON, Presiding Judge.

In this action, the Center for a Sustainable Coast, Inc., and two named plaintiffs

(collectively, “the Center”) filed a petition challenging the Georgia Department of

Natural Resources’ (“DNR”) use of “letters of permission” to allow alterations to the

coast that the Center contends require a permit. The trial court dismissed the petition,

and the Center appealed. See Center for a Sustainable Coast, Inc. v. Ga. Dept. of

Natural Resources, 319 Ga. App. 205 (734 SE2d 206) (2012).

1. In Division 2 of our decision, we held that the trial court erred in dismissing

the Center’s claim for injunctive relief. Id. at 208-209 (2). The Supreme Court of

Georgia granted certiorari to determine whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity presents a bar to injunctive relief. Ga. Dept. of Natural Resources v. Center for a

Sustainable Coast, Inc., _ Ga. _ (Case No. S13G0602, decided February 24, 2014).

The Supreme Court held that “sovereign immunity bars the Center’s claim for

injunctive relief against the State in this case, whether the Center brings that claim

pursuant to the common law or [pursuant to] OCGA § 12-5-245,” and, therefore, that

we erred in holding that “the Center’s claim for injunctive relief [is] viable.” Id. at _

(*22). Accordingly, Division 2 of our decision in Center for a Sustainable Coast, Inc.

v. Ga. Dept. of Natural Resources, 319 Ga. App. at 208-209 (2), is vacated, the

judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this Court, and the trial

court’s ruling is affirmed in part insofar as it dismissed the Center’s claim for

injunctive relief.

2. In Division 1 of our earlier decision, we held that the trial court did not err

in dismissing the Center’s declaratory judgment petition. 319 Ga. App. at 207-208

(1). The Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari as to our disposition of the

Center’s claims for declaratory judgment. Ga. Dept. of Natural Resources v. Center

for a Sustainable Coast, Inc., _ Ga. at _, n. 1. We have reviewed Division 1 of our

decision and conclude that it is consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling. As a

result, our holding in Division 1 became binding upon return of the remittitur and

2 remains the judgment of this Court; the trial court’s ruling is affirmed in part insofar

as it dismissed the Center’s declaratory judgment petition.

3. In Division 3 of our earlier decision, we vacated the trial court’s judgment

insofar as it dismissed the Center’s due process and equal protection claims, and we

remanded the case for further consideration. 319 Ga. App. at 209 (3). The Supreme

Court declined to grant certiorari as to our disposition of the Center’s claims pursuant

to the United States Constitution. Ga. Dept. of Natural Resources v. Center for a

Sustainable Coast, Inc., _ Ga. at _, n. 1. We have reviewed Division 3 of our decision

and conclude that it is consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling. As a result, our

holding in Division 3 became binding upon return of the remittitur and remains the

judgment of this Court; the trial court’s ruling is vacated in part.

Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part, and case remanded. Phipps,

C. J., and Dillard, J., concur.