Johnson v. Woodard
707 S.E.2d 325
Va.2011Background
- Petitions were filed under Code §§ 24.2-233, 24.2-235 to remove four Gloucester County Board of Supervisors.
- Petitions were signed by the petitioners and by 10% of registered voters from the last election.
- At filing, supervisors faced criminal indictments including alleged FOIA violations.
- A special prosecutor was appointed to litigate removal and prosecute the supervisors; indictments were later dismissed.
- The special prosecutor moved for nonsuit; the circuit court granted nonsuit and entered an order stating the court would retain jurisdiction for attorney’s fees, costs, and other relief and that the order was not a final order for Rule 1:1 purposes.
- After nonsuit, the supervisors sought attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions against petitioners; the circuit court awarded fees and imposed sanctions well after the 21 days, prompting appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court retained jurisdiction beyond 21 days to consider sanctions. | Johnson petitioners argue the nonsuit was final and Rule 1:1 barred further action. | Woodard defendants contend the nonsuit order expressly retained jurisdiction. | Circuit court retained jurisdiction; but sanctions against petitioners were improper for other reasons. |
| Whether petitioners were parties to the removal action eligible for sanctions under 8.01-271.1. | Petitioners contend they are appropriate targets of sanctions as petitioners. | Supervisors argue petitioners are parties; the petitioners are non-parties supported by the Commonwealth. | Petitioners were not parties; sanctions under 8.01-271.1 could not be imposed on them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamsburg Peking Corp. v. Kong, 270 Va. 350, 619 S.E.2d 100 (2005) (nonsuit sanctions remain under Rule 1:1 for 21 days after entry)
- Super Fresh Food Markets of Virginia, Inc. v. Ruffin, 261 Va. 555, 561 S.E.2d 734 (2002) (retaining jurisdiction language postpones finality under Rule 1:1)
- Andrews v. Ring, 266 Va. 311, 585 S.E.2d 780 (2003) (general-words limited by specific terms in statutory interpretation)
- Warren v. Commonwealth, 136 Va. 573, 118 S.E. 125 (1923) (removal-like actions are public and Commonwealth-focused in nature)