Authored by: Marcia M. Ernst The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the parties had mutually rescinded the settlement agreement containing the arbitration clause. In Reiterman v. Abid,[1] a law school admissions test prep teacher sued a former student in 2018, claiming she had defamed him by creating anonymous blogposts that accused him of sexually assaulting multiple women.[2] The former student denied involvement in the internet smear campaign, and the teacher and student entered into a settlement agreement in the summer of 2018. The settlement agreement included… Read more
Tag: mernst
Use of Signal Jammer to Prevent Employees from Using their Phones at Work Results in FCC Fine
Authored By: Marcia M. Ernst While the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) previously upheld an employer policy that prohibited employee phone use at work for safety and security reasons[1], the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) recently upheld a fine against an employer for using a signal jamming device to prevent employees from using their phones at work.[2] Signal jammers, which overpower, block, or interfere with authorized radio frequencies and communications, are illegal under the federal Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”)[3], with only a few exceptions recognized for use by the government. Jammers present a direct danger to public safety… Read more
SB 329 and HB 961 Introduced in the Georgia General Assembly to Address Court Ruling Barring Apportionment of Damages in Single Defendant Cases
Authored By: Marcia M. Ernst In Alston & Bird, LLP v. Hatcher Management Holdings, LLC, 862 S.E.2d 295 (Ga. 2021), the Georgia Supreme Court limited the apportionment of fault in tort cases. As reported in SGR’s Appellate Blog, the Court ruled that O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(b) allowed the apportionment of fault among persons who are liable (parties and non-parties) only in a multi-defendant case. In other words, where a case is brought against only a single defendant, no fault can be apportioned to responsible non-parties and the defendant must pay 100 percent of the damages, less any percentage of fault attributed… Read more
There is No Common-Law Right to Boot a Vehicle in Georgia: Booting a Car is Not the Same as Corralling Livestock
Authored by: Marcia M. Ernst In the case of RCC Wesley Chapel Crossing, LLC et al. v. Forrest Allen et al., the Georgia Supreme Court addressed whether a common-law right exists to allow a private property owner to boot a vehicle parked on its property without permission. Booting is the practice of immobilizing a vehicle until the owner pays to have the immobilization device removed. Plaintiff sued the owner-operator of a parking lot and the commercial tenants of the connected shopping center claiming negligence, premises liability, false imprisonment, conversion, and violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act… Read more
New Georgia Decision on Integrated Agreements
On November 28, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals decided Lovell v. Georgia Trust Bank, Case No. A12A1234. The case is notable for its way it addresses a discovery dispute and for the Court’s implying an integrated agreement in the absence of a merger clause The bank had sued Lovell to recover on a promissory note. The bank received a summary judgment. On appeal, Lovell contended that the bank failed to honor its oral promise to work with him in the event of default and appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to compel the production of the underlying loan file,… Read more