Nelson Rodriguez v. Houston County, Georgia ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                               FOURTH DIVISION
    RICKMAN, C. J.,
    DILLARD, P. J. and BROWN, J.
    NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
    physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
    days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
    https://www.gaappeals.us/rules
    January 20, 2022
    In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
    A20A1566. RODRIGUEZ v. HOUSTON COUNTY.
    DILLARD, Presiding Judge.
    Nelson Rodriguez filed a lawsuit against Deputy James Spivey and Houston
    County, alleging that he suffered injuries as a result of a motor-vehicle accident
    caused by the deputy’s negligence and the County was liable as the deputy’s
    employer. The County filed an answer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
    arguing it was not a proper party because the deputy was employed by the Houston
    County Sheriff’s Office and not a County employee. Then, after the statute of
    limitation expired, Rodriguez filed a motion to add Houston County Sheriff, Cullen
    Talton, which the trial court denied in the same order in which it granted the County’s
    motion for judgment on the pleadings.
    On appeal to this Court, Rodriguez argued the trial court erred in finding that
    he failed to comply with the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c) for adding a party
    after the expiration of the statute of limitation, but we affirmed the trial court’s ruling
    in an unpublished Rule 36 opinion.1
    Several months later, in Oconee County v. Cannon2 (a case with facts
    analogous to this case), the Supreme Court of Georgia vacated a decision by this
    Court,3 in which we reversed a trial court’s order that similarly denied the plaintiffs’
    motion—filed after the expiration of the statute of limitation—to substitute the sheriff
    as defendant in their wrongful death action, after having wrongly sued the county.4
    Specifically, the Cannon Court held that the text of OCGA § 9-11-15 (c)
    demonstrates
    the proper question in determining whether the statute’s third condition
    of relation-back is met is not whether the plaintiff knew or should have
    known the identity of the proper defendant, but whether the proper
    1
    See Rodriguez v. Houston County, Case No. A20A1566 (decided Oct. 5,
    2020) (unpublished opinion).
    2
    
    310 Ga. 728
     (854 SE2d 531) (2021).
    3
    Cannon v. Oconee County, 
    353 Ga. App. 296
     (835 SE2d 753) (2019).
    4
    See Cannon, 310 Ga. at 731 (1).
    2
    defendant knew or should have known that the action would have been
    brought against him but for the plaintiff’s mistake.5
    So, as a result, our Supreme Court directed us to remand that case to the trial court to
    apply the proper standard.6
    Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court of Georgia granted Rodriguez’s petition
    for certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case to this Court for
    reconsideration in light of its decision in Cannon.7 Importantly, in Cannon, the
    Supreme Court vacated our decision in that case “with direction to vacate the trial
    court decision and direct the trial court to make findings consistent with the
    appropriate test for application of relation-back as set forth in this opinion.”8
    Accordingly, we vacate our opinion, vacate the trial court’s decision denying
    Rodriguez’s motion to add the sheriff as a party, and remand the case for further
    proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Cannon.
    5
    Id. at 734 (2).
    6
    See id. at 737 (3).
    7
    See Rodriguez v. Houston County, Case No. S21C0347 (April 19, 2021).
    8
    Cannon, 310 Ga. at 737 (3).
    3
    Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. Rickman, C. J., and
    Brown, J., concur.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A20A1566

Filed Date: 1/20/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/20/2022