Moses v. Jordan, 310 Ga. App. 637

Moses and Jordan formed the firm Jordan and Moses, effective January 1, 2003, with Jordan as rainmaker and Moses handling management; Moses previously contract-attorney with J&B starting in 2000.
Jordan began contemplating dissolution in spring 2006 due to concerns about Moses’s workplace behavior and management, ultimately soliciting memos from associates in summer 2006.
On August 27, 2006, Jordan purportedly dissolved the partnership effective August 31, 2006, prompting Moses to dispute the date and seek to resolve the partnership instead.
Jordan’s communications and actions included telling clients the firm dissolved and later forming The Jordan Firm, while Moses learned of the dissolution in late 2006.
Moses asserted counterclaims including wrongful dissolution, breach of fiduciary duty, and other claims; Jordan sought summary judgment and a protective order on admissions; the trial court granted some relief in Jordan’s favor and ordered Moses to turn over a portable hard drive.
The appellate court reversed on multiple grounds, finding genuine issues of material fact on wrongful dissolution, improper entry of a judgment on pleadings about dissolution date, and abuse of a protective order to confiscate personal property.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment on wrongful dissolution was proper	Moses argues genuine issues exist about wrongful dissolution	Jordan contends dissolution was lawful or properly adjudicated	Not properly granted; genuine issues of material fact exist
Whether the dissolution date was correctly determined on pleadings alone	Moses disputed September 26, 2006 as the dissolution date	Jordan sought judgment on the pleadings that dissolution occurred in September 2006	Trial court erred by deciding dissolution date on pleadings alone
Whether the public policy finding about mutual consent was properly used	Moses challenges the use of public policy to support dissolution	Jordan relied on policy considerations in denial of Moses’s claim	Moot because issue resolved by reversal on the pleadings/dissolution date issues
Whether the protective order on Moses’s second request for admissions was proper	Requests for admissions were proper to narrow issues; no bad faith shown	Protective order was warranted due to burdensomeness and oppression	Abused discretion; protective order should not be blanket based only on number of requests
Whether confiscation of Moses’s portable hard drive was proper under discovery rules	Drive contained relevant firm information; should be examined in discovery	Protective order allowed turnover of tangible items within discovery scope	Trial court erred by confiscating personal property via discovery order

Arford v. Blalock, 199 Ga.App. 434 (1991) (fiduciary duties and wrongful dissolution principles)
Wilensky v. Blalock, 262 Ga. 95 (1992) (viable wrongful dissolution claim for excluding partner and diverting assets)
Asgharneya v. Hadavi, 298 Ga.App. 693 (2009) (damages for wrongful dissolution in a check-cashing business context)
Chaney v. Burdett, 274 Ga. 805 (2002) (duty of utmost good faith continues through winding up)
Kelley Mfg. Co. v. Martin, 296 Ga.App. 236 (2009) (summary-judgment standards; pleadings vs. factual disputes)
Wright v. Swint, 224 Ga.App. 417 (1997) (reversal when dissolution date disputed on pleadings)
Mote v. Tomlin, 136 Ga.App. 616 (1975) (discovery rules; admission requests to establish uncontested facts)
Mead Corp. v. Masterack, 243 Ga. 213 (1979) (discovery scope and abuse of protective orders)
Osborne v. Bank of Delight, 173 Ga.App. 322 (1985) (protective orders; limits on discovery)