Mays v. Target Corp., 322 Ga. App. 44

Mays sues Target and Wacaster for invasion of privacy and related torts arising from Wacaster filming her in Target's unisex dressing room on Dec 15, 2008.
Wacaster was indicted for invasion of privacy on Mar 8, 2010 and pled guilty on Sep 14, 2010.
Mays filed suit on Jul 11, 2011, arguing OCGA § 9-3-99 tolls the limitations period from the crime date through final disposition.
Target moved to dismiss, contending § 9-3-99 does not toll because Target was not charged with a crime; trial court acknowledged Branton/Valades issues but held tolling does not apply to targets not criminal defendants.
The court concluded § 9-3-99 tolling does not apply to Mays’s claims against Target, so her two-year statute of limitations bars the action; Mays’s service on Target occurred on Aug 12, 2011.
Judgment affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does OCGA § 9-3-99 toll the statute for torts against a non-criminal defendant?	Mays argues the tolling applies to tort claims arising from the crime.	Target contends tolling only applies to actions against the criminal defendant; Target was not charged.	No tolling for Target; claims barred.
Should Branton/Valades control tolling here given Target was not criminally charged?	Argues statutory language and preamble support tolling in broad terms.	Branton controls; tolling limited to victims against criminal defendants.	Branton controls; tolling not extended to Target; claims barred.

Valades v. Uslu, 301 Ga. App. 885 (2009) (tolls the statute for the victim while prosecution pending (up to six years))
Branton v. Columbia County, 304 Ga. App. 149 (2010) (tolling not applied to joint tortfeasor not criminally charged)