Facts
In the case of Brandenburg v. City of Vidalia, Brandenburg, the mother of a murder victim, brought claims against the City of Vidalia, Centerstone of Florida, and the killer’s father for wrongful death. Brandenburg dismissed Centerstone after a settlement was reached and added the Central Florida Behavioral Health Network, Inc. (CFBHN) as a Defendant. The City of Vidalia moved for summary judgment, mainly due to Brandenburg’s insufficient ante litem notice. CFBHN filed a motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction. The Superior Court of Toombs County granted both the summary judgment motion and the motion to dismiss. Brandenburg appealed.
Christian (referred to as “Christina” in the opinion) Joiner was killed by Tyrone Burns, Jr. on November 16, 2018, while she was working at R.J. Pope Traditional Menswear in Vidalia. Burns had been arrested in Florida in 2016 for two incidents involving armed robbery and assaults against women. Burns was adjudged mentally incompetent and was put on conditional release, which included requirements that he enroll in mental health treatment through Centerstone of Florida, take his prescribed medications, live with his father in Florida, and not possess any firearms.
Burns traveled from Florida to Vidalia in September of 2018. Between his arrival and Christian’s murder, police responded to three separate incidents involving Burns. He was detained for three days after the first report but was not detained at all after the second and third reports. He had not been taking any of his required medications.
On November 16, 2018, Burns murdered Ms. Joiner. Her mother, the plaintiff, first served the City of Vidalia with an ante litem notice on April 16, 2019. She then brought a wrongful death claim against Burns, the City of Vidalia, Centerstone, and, eventually, CFBHN. After Centerstone was dismissed because of a settlement, the City of Vidalia moved for summary judgment because they claimed the ante litem notice requirements were not met. CFBHN filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the Georgia court had no personal jurisdiction over them. The trial court judge granted summary judgment to the city and also granted CFBHN’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed.
Issues and Holdings
The issues in this case were:
- Does an ante litem notice that demands “not less than $10,000,000” comply with Georgia’s ante litem notice requirements under O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5(e)?
- Does the Georgia long-arm statute give a Georgia court personal jurisdiction over a Florida non-profit corporation that contracted with another organization to provide mental health and substance abuse services to an individual on conditional release who traveled to Georgia and committed a crime?
The court ruled:
- No.
- No.
Reasoning
1. The Sufficiency of the Ante Litem Notice
Brandenburg’s ante litem notice stated that “the claim for these damages is not less than $10,000,000.” Brandenburg v. City of Vidalia, 366 Ga. App. 51, 54 (2022). The city argued that this claim did not substantially comply with Georgia’s ante litem notice requirements under O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5. The court agreed, stating “[t]he description of the extent of the injury required in subsection (b) of this Code section shall include the specific amount of monetary damages being sought from the municipal corporation.” Brandenburg, 366 Ga. App. at 55 (citing City of Norcross v. Johnson, 363 Ga. App. 78, 79-80 (2022)). The court went on further to state that “a notice does not comply with [the statute] unless a specific amount is given that would constitute an offer that could be accepted.” Brandenburg, 366 Ga. App. at 55 (citing Johnson, 363 Ga. App. at 296). The court looked at several previous cases with similar phrases, such as “in an amount not less than,” “in excess of,” and “no less than…and no more than,” that were all deemed too indefinite. See Davis v. City of Valdosta, 357 Ga. App. 900 (2020); Tanks v. Nesmith, 359 Ga. App. 596 (2021); Hall v. City of Blakely, 361 Ga. App. 135 (2021). The court, therefore, affirmed the trial court’s order granting the City of Vidalia’s motion for summary judgment because Brandenburg’s ante litem notice did not strictly or substantially comply with the statute’s damages specificity requirement.
2. Personal Jurisdiction Over CFBHN
Brandenburg argued that CFBHN was subject to personal jurisdiction under Georgia’s long-arm statute (O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91) for a few reasons. First, Brandenburg contended that Centerstone should be considered an agent of CFBHN. Because Burns had contact with a Centerstone representative after he left Florida for Georgia, she argued CHFBN transacted business in Georgia through the Centerstone representative. She also claimed that Centerstone’s failure to treat and monitor Burns while he was in Georgia should be considered a tortious act committed within the state. Finally, she argued that there was a continuous course of conduct in Georgia for failure to monitor Burns over the course of a few months.
The court disagreed. Its analysis started with a reminder of the basic tenets of the International Shoe test that must be considered before exercising personal jurisdiction under a long-arm statute: minimum contacts enough to not “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Brandenburg, 366 Ga. App. at 58 (citing Cooke v. Cooke, 277 Ga. 731, 732-733 (2004)). The court elaborated, laying out the standards considered for determining if minimum contacts exist: a purposeful act in the forum state, the claim at issue is related to that act and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not “violate notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Beasley v. Beasley, 260 Ga. 419, 421 (1990).
The court then narrowed its focus on Georgia’s long-arm statute. O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91 permits personal jurisdiction over an individual or corporation if that individual or corporation: (1) transacts any business within Georgia; (2) commits a tortious act or omission within Georgia; or (3) commits a tortious act or omission outside the state but regularly does or solicits business within the state, engages in persistent conduct with the state, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed within the state.
The court looked at each of these factors. It was unpersuaded that CFBHN transacted business in Georgia because it was registered in Florida, had its principal place of business in Florida, did not have any agents or offices in Georgia, and none of its representatives had contact with Georgia. The court did not agree that the Centerstone representative was an agent of CFBHN primarily because of the subcontract between the two companies that designated Centerstone as an independent contractor.
The court was also unconvinced that CFBHN had committed a tortious act in Georgia, as the failure to monitor and treat Burns was due to inaction by Centerstone rather than CFBHN. Because the court had already determined that Centerstone was an independent contractor and not an agent of CFBHN, a tortious act on the part of Centerstone was not a tortious act on the part of CFBHN.
Finally, the court determined that CFBHN did not have any sort of regular business or continued course of conduct in the state of Georgia based on the above facts.
Conclusion
This case is a reminder of the importance of complying with the strict terms of an ante litem statute. As you can see, even the construction of a single sentence can be the difference between compliance and noncompliance. Noncompliance can destroy a claim completely. When drafting an ante litem notice, have the statute accessible. Use the statute during your editing process, and make sure that whoever reviews the notice also refers directly to the statute. Also, ensure that case law is reviewed interpreting the particular statute and its separate requirements.
On the personal jurisdiction question, make sure that you are considering both subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction when filing a lawsuit. Investigate each defendant’s contacts with the forum statute if you are dealing with a company that is registered in another state. Consider whether or not they have any agents or employees in the state in which you are filing. Look up their locations and research any contacts they may have with the forum state.
To learn more about The Champion Firm and the personal injury practice areas we cover, visit our main website here. If you're an attorney seeking to refer a case or partner with us as co-counsel, please reach out here.
Citation: Brandenburg v. City of Vidalia, A22A1027 (Ga. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2022)
