Hindu Temple & Community Center of the High Desert, Inc. v. Raghunathan
311 Ga. App. 109
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In 2008 the Gwinnett County Police Department received nationwide complaints against Hindu Temple and its founder Annamalai for credit-card fraud.
- Investigators obtained statements from Shastri and Kandasamy alleging unauthorized charges and misrepresentation by Annamalai as a doctor.
- Raghunathan referred Kandasamy to the investigator; it is unclear whether he reported fraud himself.
- In January 2010 Hindu Temple and Annamalai sued Shastri, Kandasamy, and Raghunathan for malicious prosecution, intentional interference with contractual relations, and defamation, seeking damages.
- Simultaneously, Annamalai and counsel filed sworn verifications under OCGA 9-11-11.1(b) certifying the claims were true, well grounded, not privileged, and not interposed for improper purposes.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint as an anti-SLAPP matter, found the verifications false, and ordered the plaintiffs and their counsel to pay the opponents’ attorney fees and expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit is governed by OCGA 9-11-11.1 as a SLAPP action | Plaintiffs contend anti-SLAPP does not apply given timing. | Defendants argue the claims fall within protected anti-SLAPP activity. | Yes; the suit falls within OCGA 9-11-11.1 and required sworn verifications. |
| Whether the verifications were false | Affirmations were true and made after reasonable inquiry. | Verifications were false or not well grounded in fact. | Yes; verifications were false and warranted dismissal and sanctions. |
| Whether the attorney-fee award under OCGA 9-15-14 was proper | Fees should be limited to actual billed amounts. | Award should reflect reasonable value of attorney services. | Yes; court may award reasonable value, not limited to billed amounts; award sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlanta Humane Society v. Harkins, 278 Ga. 451 (2004) (recognizes substantive and procedural reach of OCGA 9-11-11.1)
- Metzler v. Rowell, 248 Ga.App. 596 (2001) (permissible to admit evidence in 9-11-11.1 hearing; scope of proceedings)
- Denton v. Browns Mill Dev. Co., Inc., 275 Ga. 2 (2002) (limits of protected conduct under the anti-SLAPP statute)
- Roylston v. Bank of Am., N.A., 290 Ga.App. 556 (2008) (attorney-fee sanctions; scope of recoverable costs)