Settles Bridge Farm, LLC v. Masino
318 Ga. App. 576
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Settles Bridge Farm, LLC sued Masino and the Gwinnett Chamber for tortious interference based on Masino’s phone call to a city manager that allegedly prompted zoning changes hindering Settles Bridge’s sale of 36.5 acres to Notre Dame Academy.
- Notre Dame planned to build a school on the property; the city initially indicated the school was a by-right use, but later moratoriums and zoning amendments obstructed development.
- Masino’s statements were alleged to influence the city’s actions, leading to a moratorium and a requirement for a special use permit, ultimately causing Notre Dame to terminate the purchase contract.
- The trial court granted the anti-SLAPP motion under OCGA § 9-11-11.1, concluding the statements were privileged because they concerned a public issue.
- Settles Bridge argued the confidentiality agreement between Masino and the chamber protected proprietary information, and that the agreement was intended for its benefit; the court rejected this.
- On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, holding that Masino’s statements related to a public concern and were made in good faith, thus privileged under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Masino’s statements privileged under OCGA 9-11-11.1(b)? | Masino’s statements affected private interests; not privileged. | Statements were made in good faith on a public-issue, thus privileged. | Yes; statements privileged and claim properly dismissed. |
| Did the confidentiality agreement bar Settles Bridge’s claim? | Agreement intended to benefit Settles Bridge; prevents disclosure to third parties. | Agreement not intended for Settles Bridge’s benefit; irrelevant to the claim. | No; no third-party beneficiary and confidentiality not violated. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion in staying discovery under OCGA 9-11-11.1(d)? | Should allow broader discovery to resolve motives and background. | Discovery limited to what’s needed to resolve the motion to dismiss; stay appropriate. | No; court did not abuse discretion; stay and limited discovery appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harkins v. Atlanta Humane Society, 273 Ga. App. 489 (Ga. App. 2005) (anti-SLAPP privilege for statements related to public concern)
- Atlanta Humane Society v. Harkins, 278 Ga. 451 (Ga. 2004) (statutory framework for dismissal via privilege and verification)
- Metzler v. Rowell, 248 Ga. App. 596 (Ga. App. 2001) (letters/zoning issues within anti-SLAPP scope)
- Providence Constr. Co. v. Bauer, 229 Ga. App. 679 (Ga. App. 1997) (development/land-use communications covered by anti-SLAPP)
- Ga. Community Support &c. v. Berryhill, 275 Ga. App. 189 (Ga. App. 2005) (limits of official proceedings involvement)