James R. Harper, III v. Glock Inc.
340 Ga. App. 65
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Harper worked as an investigator for Gaston Glock, Glock, Inc., and Consultinvest from about 2000–2003 and alleged he uncovered illicit profit-skimming, concealed financials, and questionable gun sales.
- Relations soured; Glock accused Harper of converting funds and Harper sued for unpaid fees; a criminal investigation of Harper followed in 2007–2008.
- Harper was indicted January 21, 2010, on Georgia RICO and theft charges; the State entered a nolle prosequi on March 14, 2013, terminating the prosecution.
- Harper filed a civil suit on September 14, 2015, asserting malicious prosecution and Georgia RICO claims against Glock, Consultinvest, and associated lawyers.
- The trial court dismissed the malicious prosecution claim as time-barred (statute: two years) but denied dismissal of the civil RICO claims; defendants appealed the denial and Harper cross-appealed the dismissal.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the malicious prosecution statute began to run later (Harper’s argument) and whether the revised five-year RICO limitation (effective July 1, 2015) revived Harper’s time-barred RICO claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether malicious prosecution claim was time-barred | Harper: six-month potential for reindictment delayed start of the 2-year limitation | Defendants: statute began to run at nolle prosequi; claim filed after two years | Court: nolle prosequi constituted prima facie termination; statute began then; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether civil RICO claims were time-barred under pre-2015 law | Harper: revised July 1, 2015 statute should apply retroactively to revive claims | Defendants: pre-2015 accrual rule applies; claims accrued >5 years before revision so barred | Court: pre-2015 five-year limitation governs; revision not retroactive; RICO claims dismissed |
| Accrual rule for pre-2015 RICO statute | Harper implied accrual later based on discovery of pattern | Defendants: accrual occurred earlier, beyond five years | Court: follows Blalock — accrual when plaintiff discovered or should have discovered injury as part of a pattern; here claims accrued >5 years before revision |
| Whether statute's language mandates retroactivity | Harper: legislative change should revive pending claims | Defendants: no mandatory retroactivity in statute | Court: no imperative or legislative purpose requiring retroactive application; therefore no revival |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. General Apartment Co., 139 Ga. App. 713 (prima facie termination by nolle prosequi starts running of malicious-prosecution limitations)
- Blalock v. Anneewakee, Inc., 206 Ga. App. 676 (pre-2015 civil RICO accrues when plaintiff discovers or should have discovered injury as part of a pattern)
- Southern Intermodal Logistics v. D. J. Powers Co., 251 Ga. App. 865 (discussion of RICO accrual principles)
- McNeal Construction Co. v. Wilson, 271 Ga. 540 (standard for applying amended statute of limitations retroactively)
- Brown v. Brown, 269 Ga. 724 (legislative intent requirement for retroactive application of amended limitations)