Alston & Bird LLP v. Hatcher Management Holdings, LLC
336 Ga. App. 527
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Hatcher Management Holdings, LLC (the Company) sued Alston & Bird LLP (the Firm) for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty based on the Firm’s representation of the Company while allegedly acting at the direction of Maury Hatcher.
- Company alleged Maury (a former manager and member) secretly liquidated and embezzled Company assets; Company obtained a $4,046,937 judgment against Maury in a separate action.
- The Firm filed a notice of nonparty fault under OCGA § 51-12-33, seeking to apportion fault to several nonparties (including Maury and certain Hatcher family members and prior counsel) for the Company’s damages.
- The Company moved to strike the Firm’s apportionment notice, arguing OCGA § 51-12-33(b) permits apportionment only when an action is brought against multiple defendants and that there was no evidentiary basis for apportionment.
- The trial court struck the apportionment notice without detailed explanation; the Firm obtained interlocutory review and the Court of Appeals reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCGA § 51-12-33 permits a defendant in a single-defendant suit to apportion fault to nonparties | Section 51-12-33(b) allows apportionment only where an action is brought against more than one person, so it does not apply here | Zaldivar and the statute permit a defendant to seek apportionment to nonparty tortfeasors whose breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury | Court reversed: Zaldivar controls; statute and § 51-12-33(c) allow assigning fault to nonparties in single-defendant cases if they breached a legal duty in tort proximately causing the plaintiff’s injury |
| Whether the trial court properly struck the Firm’s notice for lack of evidentiary basis | Company contended there was no evidence to apportion fault to the identified nonparties | Firm alleged factual bases (e.g., mismanagement, failure to pursue judgments, embezzlement allegations) sufficient to present apportionment to the trier of fact | Court held the trial court erred in striking the notice; sufficiency is a jury question if defendant establishes a rational basis at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Zaldivar v. Prickett, 297 Ga. 589 (Sup. Ct. Ga. 2015) (OCGA § 51-12-33 requires the trier of fact to consider all tortfeasors whose breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury, even in single-defendant cases)
- Couch v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 291 Ga. 359 (Sup. Ct. Ga. 2012) (discussion of apportionment principles and jury determinations of fault)
- Double View Ventures, LLC v. Polite, 326 Ga. App. 555 (Ct. App. Ga. 2014) (defendants bear burden to show a rational basis to apportion fault to nonparties; determination is for the jury)
- Barnett v. Farmer, 308 Ga. App. 358 (Ct. App. Ga. 2011) (apportionment to a nonparty in a single-defendant context where appropriate)