Walker v. Mecca
320 Ga. App. 142
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs filed three separate complaints arising from the June 13, 2009 auto collision, seeking damages for injuries.
- First suit (Sept. 21, 2009) against the Meccas was dismissed on June 20, 2011.
- Second suit (June 6, 2011) against Sheppard was dismissed on June 20, 2011.
- Instant action (July 6, 2011) again against the Meccas and Sheppard sought recovery for the same injuries.
- Trial court granted dismissal under OCGA § 9-11-41(a)(3), ruling two prior dismissals bar the action as to all defendants.
- Court held the two-dismissals rule applies to the same claim regardless of named defendants; Hedquist and Mateen not controlling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two prior dismissals bar the current action | Walker argues rule applies only to same defendants | Meccas contend third action barred as to all defendants | Barred; two prior dismissals adjudicate on the merits as to the same claim |
| Scope of the two-dismissals rule across different defendants | Rule targets same claim, not necessarily same defendants | Rule applies broadly to any defendants in prior dismissals | Rule applies to same claim regardless of defendants |
| Are Hedquist or Mateen controlling | Those cases could extend relief to other parties | They do not control OCGA § 9-11-41 in this context | Not controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Belco Electric v. Bush, 204 Ga. App. 811 (1992) (two-dismissal rule bars action on same claim against any defendant)
- Controlled Blasting v. Viars, 293 Ga. App. 284 (2008) (de novo review; controls statutory interpretation here)
- Hedquist v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 272 Ga. 209 (2000) (dismissal with prejudice issues not controlling here)
- Mateen v. Dicus, 286 Ga. App. 760 (2007) (dismissal with prejudice extending to other party not at issue)