Dezso Benedek v. the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
332 Ga. App. 573
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Benedek, a professor at the University of Georgia, sued the Board of Regents, Michael Adams, and the University of Georgia for alleged wrongdoing related to disciplinary actions.
- He repeatedly amended his complaints to add new claims and additional parties.
- The trial court held that Benedek’s tort claims were barred by the Georgia Tort Claims Act and sovereign immunity and denied leave to amend to add Georgia RICO claims, parties, and damages.
- The court treated Benedek’s proposed Georgia RICO theories as barred through the same sovereign-immunity analysis and declined to permit amendments to circumvent the tort claims.
- On appeal, Benedek challenged the denial of amendment to add RICO claims/parties and the dismissal of the tort claims; he also sought sanctions.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying amendment to add RICO claims and new parties | Benedek argues he was entitled to amend as a matter of right before a pretrial order. | The Board argues amendments should be denied and merits reviewed, not permitted as of right. | Yes, reversal; amendment to add RICO claims/parties permitted. |
| Whether the proposed RICO claims are barred by sovereign immunity | Benedek contends RICO can bypass tort claims not barred by immunity. | Defendants contend sovereign immunity blocks RICO claims through the Georgia Tort Claims Act. | Remanded for merits; trial court erred in ruling against RICO amendment. |
| Whether tort claims were properly dismissed under the Georgia Tort Claims Act | Benedek asserts tort claims should proceed if properly pled. | The court concluded tort claims were barred by the Georgia Tort Claims Act and sovereign immunity. | Remanded to address merits; dismissal vacated to permit proper analysis. |
| Whether the denial of sanctions under OCGA § 9-15-14 was properly decided | Benedek sought sanctions for the opposing parties’ conduct. | The court did not reach or properly analyze sanctions independently of other rulings. | Moot due to partial reversal and remand on other issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutto v. Plagens, 254 Ga. 512 (Ga. 1985) (amendment right is broad; new causes of action may be pleaded)
- Skylake Property Owners Assoc. v. Powell, 281 Ga. App. 715 (Ga. App. 2006) (motion to amend while a dispositive motion pending; pretrial order timing)
- Riding v. Ellis, 297 Ga. App. 740 (Ga. App. 2009) (add/drop party by amendment; pari materia with 9-11-21; discretion vested in court)
- Rasheed v. Klopp Enterprises, 276 Ga. App. 91 (Ga. App. 2005) (trial court abuse of discretion in adding parties standard)
- Richards v. Wells Fargo Bank, 325 Ga. App. 722 (Ga. App. 2014) (proper analysis for amendments to add parties; merits context)
- Bandy v. Hosp Auth. of Walker County, 174 Ga. App. 556 (Ga. App. 1985) (reversal where trial court failed to apply proper amendment standard)