Walker v. Gowen Stores LLC
322 Ga. App. 376
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Gowen Stores LLC owned two gas stations and alleged multimillion-dollar losses after competing stations closed.
- Decedent Fairley Cisco owned/controlled three stations and (allegedly, 2000–2008) conspired with employees to illegally rig pumps to dispense less fuel and bribed a state inspector to avoid detection.
- Cisco’s stations advertised below-market prices based on the fraud, drawing customers away from Gowen and causing Gowen’s business failure.
- Gowen sued Cisco’s estate (executrices Walker and Shave) alleging tortious interference with business relations, negligence per se (criminal acts), and related tort claims; the estate moved to dismiss under OCGA § 9-11-12(b)(6).
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss; the executrices sought interlocutory review and the appellate court granted the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint states a claim sufficient to survive a OCGA § 9-11-12(b)(6) motion | Gowen alleged unlawful pump-rigging and bribery that improperly and maliciously diverted customers, causing foreseeable, proximate financial injury | Executrices argued the complaint fails to state a claim and damages are too remote/speculative | Denied dismissal: allegations sufficiently pleaded a tortious interference claim and gave fair notice; speculative damages do not justify dismissal |
| Whether below-market pricing alone can support tortious interference | Gowen: unlawful means (fraud/bribery) made the pricing wrongful and malicious | Executrices: low prices alone are not improper conduct supporting interference | Court: unlawful elements (pump fraud, bribery) distinguish this from permissible below-cost pricing; supports interference claim |
| Whether plaintiff must plead precise form of relief or perfect pleading to survive dismissal | Gowen: complaint need only state a claim for relief and give fair notice | Executrices: form/precision defects warrant dismissal | Court: complaint need not be perfect; pleading a claim with fair notice suffices; plaintiff may recover on different theory than pleaded |
| Whether speculative damages justify dismissal at pleading stage | Gowen: alleged concrete business losses and closures | Executrices: damages too remote/speculative to sustain claim | Court: speculative damages do not justify dismissal where allegations, taken as true, could support recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- State of Ga. v. Singh, 291 Ga. 525 (explains standard for OCGA § 9-11-12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Koehler v. Massell, 229 Ga. 359 (a complaint need only state a claim for relief to withstand dismissal)
- Rogers v. Carmike Cinemas, 211 Ga. App. 427 (plaintiff may sue on one theory and recover on another if claim adequately pleads relief)
- Charles H. Wesley Ed. Foundation v. State Election Bd., 282 Ga. 707 (complaint not dismissed for wrong form of relief if remedy exists under facts pled)
- Lathem v. Hestley, 270 Ga. 849 (complaint must give fair notice and general indication of litigation type)
- Cobb County v. Jones Group P.L.C., 218 Ga. App. 149 (appellate review of denial of motion to dismiss is de novo)
- Gillis v. American Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 222 Ga. App. 891 (affirmance proper if any ground supports judgment)
- Integrated Micro Systems v. NEC Home Electronics (USA), 174 Ga. App. 197 (elements of tortious interference with business relations)
- U. S. Anchor Mfg. v. Rule Indus., 264 Ga. 295 (below-cost pricing alone is not improper without other unlawful element)
- Camp v. Eichelkraut, 246 Ga. App. 275 (malice in interference tort broadly construed to include unauthorized interference)
- Day v. Brown, 207 Ga. App. 134 (cannot say plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any provable facts supporting general allegations)
- Little v. Fleet Finance, 224 Ga. App. 498 (speculative damages are not a basis for dismissal)
- DeLoach v. Maurer, 130 Ga. App. 824 (if any count states a claim, motion to dismiss the entire complaint is overruled)