Cobb County v. Ray Murphy

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: March 19, 2024
• Docket: A24I0138
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ March 19, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24I0138. COBB COUNTY et al v. RAY MURPHY.

Cobb County; the Cobb County Board of Commissioners; and members of the

Board, in their individual and official capacities, (“the defendants”) seek

interlocutory review of the trial court’s order denying their renewed motion to dismiss

on sovereign immunity grounds and granting Ray Murphy’s (“the plaintiff”) request

to amend his complaint. In July 2023, the plaintiff filed this suit involving a zoning

dispute. The suit included claims for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief,

among others. After the defendants filed an answer and a motion to dismiss, the

plaintiff filed an amended complaint, removing all parties except Cobb County. The

defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss and special answer to the amended

complaint. The trial court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss and

granting the plaintiff’s request to file an amended complaint. The court certified its

ruling for immediate review, and the defendants filed the instant application for

interlocutory review in this Court. However, this case may implicate the Supreme

Court of Georgia’s exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional questions. In State v. SASS Group, 315 Ga. 893 (885 SE2d 761) (2023), the Supreme Court

interpreted Article I, Section II, Paragraph V (b) (2) of the State Constitution for the

first time. As the Supreme Court explained, “[i]n November of 2020, the people of

Georgia . . . amended our Constitution to allow for a specific waiver of sovereign

immunity . . . for declaratory relief.” Id. Paragraph V (b) (2) provides in relevant part:

. . . Actions filed pursuant to this Paragraph against any county, consolidated government, or municipality of the state or officer or employee thereof shall be brought exclusively against such county, consolidated government, or municipality and in the name of such county, consolidated government, or municipality. Actions filed pursuant to this Paragraph naming as a defendant any individual, officer, or entity other than as expressly authorized under this Paragraph shall be dismissed.

The Supreme Court concluded that “this exclusivity provision . . . requires dismissal

of a lawsuit brought under that paragraph against the State if it names defendants

other than the State or local governments specifically authorized by that provision.”

315 Ga. at 894.

Here, the issues on appeal would include whether and to what extent a party

may amend a complaint to comply with Article I, Section II, Paragraph V (b) (2) of the

State Constitution. The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over “[a]ll cases

involving the construction . . . of the Constitution of the State of Georgia. . . .” Ga.

Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Para. II (1). As the Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility for determining appellate jurisdiction, see Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis &

Med. Clinic, 267 Ga. 177, 178 (476 SE2d 587) (1996), this application is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court of Georgia for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 03/19/2024 I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.