Hammontree et al v. Georgia Freightways Corporation et al

Filing 63

ORDER dismissing as moot 41 Motion for Hearing; dismissing as moot 43 Motion for Hearing; dismissing as moot 49 Motion for Protective Order; dismissing as moot 49 Motion to Quash; granting 7 Motion to Remand to State Court of Chatham County. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 9/29/17. (wwp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED S DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVAI{NAH DIVISION TINA HAMMONTREE, S IhE daughter of Gfend4 surviving Eay Adams and as the executor oI Lhe eslaLe of Glenda Fay Adarrs, deceased, and CYNTHIA a OWENBY, s the surviving , -o r ,.r:^ , , r L ! r u lu jh e a af |ll cnd; Fd y . - U. S. DISTRICT COURT SouthernDistrictof GA Fited In Office M r1\-rartr>, DeputyCterk deceased, CASENO, CV416_2BO GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY; GEORGIA FREIGHTWAYS CORPORAT]ON,.CMA-CGM (AMERIqA) , LLC; SOUTHATLANTIC C O N S O L I D A T E DC H A S S I S P O O L L I C ; CONSOL]DATED CHASSIS MANAGEMENT LLC; INTERPOOL, INC., d/b/ a DIRECT Trac Intermodal; CHASSISLINK, INC.; and DAVID J' GIBBONS; o Court is Owenby's Motlon to Before Cynthia that case r :s v !rv rio e ^^ a : the Ptaintiffs' fof.Low, is REIBIIDED to Dlrinri Because this Ffct case is RDER Remand. (Doc. 1.) Motj-on the ra.rrracj- Hammontree and Tlna Plaintiffs State fr-'r remanded to For GRANTED IN is Court Altclrnc\/qt the State of the reasons PART and this r\L -+1,- -'. a^,.nf <, !uurruy. fees is DENIED. aff pending Court' Clerk D o c . 4 3 ; D o c . 4 9 ) a r e D I S M I S S E DA S M O O T . T h e lDoc. 4I; motions D I R E C T E Dt o is of Court c]ose this case. BACKCROUND case invofves This in a r,.rinr ^nr '.ri.h ' ra i ' ar was 1, Attach. n r n rv i v r ^ a r l r ucv v! fo DFf tr1dant \ the In r.a-_..4 m r negfigently resulted in r-lair that he Georgia wAs "q.r fn- hir vehicfe Plaintiffs in h6.ri n c i nns ^r violatlon a.Lso maintain nrov' q-At statutes, !!Yrrr nf that "the of nl- ..\rv whom was /n^. . \ !vr Fro iahtwrrrc had some connection trailer, tractor ro..Ittlef violated, or nnF r.) il lness ..rtFra-e 49 C.E.R. M^r^r a^rr 2 io r r.r-v Whife nrOrrieiOnS most Lo make iu as Che COnmeIC-LaL (Id. ) violated cr this are Defendant Gibbons S 392.3." Gibbons which support Plaintiffs :-d Delendanl rhat ATT\-UC do contend that Defe dant redera] Lractor /^^-^^.rii^n evr|Jv, ca.\rdi: 9l 27.) Gibbons faliorre r-nrrr The ) the Great WesL Casualcy Company the (Id. Defendant l^ trailer aL Gibbons, i^L.t-,.,^!,- fi- -r -E.r f f ^ alleges Lv 2-3. at nofandrnt- operated innai red hv '1 EI'T,IIILLLLJ VA-:nr.q vr r'ractor (rd. $$ 46-s0. ) coffision. . : i r ir r r. L 9 t r hyr z v a IntersLate-16 nr ng d e f e n d a n t s a l I complaint, Gibbons r''^ fnr conl ainer. the ^i 9to _.\r76r:^. Tha qhi nni no fhe Geof Gfenda Fay Adams of Defendant by 2 9 . ) D ef e n d a n t 3 9lll 25, 1? alnnrr /-.- driven i nerrr^n/_a q i T,-i ir- T-r^rc{-1ra-oq he'ncl iv 1 \ / J vs v ) "rrzorl j -- a f f death caused by accident cr nnnod wi fh i-rerr-hanr-rc , r-! m4n l v !y vehicle horribLe tragic the f or-\r unsa[e mOUOf Plaintiffs additionaf p a / ' r r 1 l , aI i a n < r< dat a rmi narl .-ii cnnrrarrr t-hr.\11.rh n r/-\\/An :nd : I (rd. ) Pl-aintiffs f rEI9rrLwayS, also ''-s viofations of Plaintiffs fnc., South :s maintain q r aL lu Lu qL e fLt iL r r r L^Y J 7p6,1- aj-j 6rrc r-, ^--^^-r L ^U - u ' i ^ f E that Defendant "as an s 40102(6) (A) . " Defendants rtL-r UIld r^-* Lllctllt LUt-lIILy subsLantia I Defendants Moror (.1 . d removed UII viofated the Safety Defendants Plainl ,'LYrrYuuv! Iedera I neoiioenr-e statuLes adjudjcaLe roments and and LLC is by for Iederal intefmOdal drivers operaLing PfainLlffs Finally, carrier case n r v u r n u iJ< gl nrrr r contend vicariously of virtue of from t- h:r liable 46 USC Court Act Shipping of reason r-lairs that wi-- claims . .v - t np a u n r L \m. lr i -^r 1984 or Federal the Regulations. -e'ctrr'r't' under r:i w h e t h er Courr its (Doc. resolution because Lhrs 'rr- spec i t-lcal I y of Adminiscrar,ion State the rho Ja w . federal a n d . r e g ul a c i o n s , Plaintiffs' SeVeraI Of -arrr' this tha 9 1 51 0 - 1 1 . ) iffs' LLC, 5167. ) quesLions Carrjer .,np-F-iOn tl 51. ) common (rd. (Id. Chassisfink, Pool Chassis C M A - C G M ( A M E R I C A') ocean str\reraf regufations. carrier carriers, motor t PrtLsI nr because Defendant Cjbbons qualifies f ^-j- l^ providers, equipment haeed Defendants Dlrect amn t/"1\/ap h\/ r rfv . \ * vI ! J Defendant n Y | er u ve o l i . !tY snrfL motor that Iiable are v Consolidated Atlantic Jnc. f hei r Eederaf the tl 40.) tnterpool-, i ru l , n r r r n .L la L r c n d e n t waJ Ilr(-, t.hat al-Lege inf e'n-otef is iln 1 of of empowered to federal. question irrri crli o1 :i cl nr i ffc r r avrqr u a r ^qsoc i atecl ihF e Sh inni a: not does to Remand, to rri or Ar-l- jndependenL to Plaintiffs, a to turn substantiaf this trigger ^n.l fed er af operate into cfaim sufficient federaf M^l-^r According sources negligence state-faw basic Motion his create 4-5.) aL federal these to 1 In A^i nct noL do (Doc. action. reference his ir h ra r r e reorllations of causes S 1 3 3 1. see 28 u's.c' i an Court's (Id. ) jurisdiction. AIiIAJ,YSI S COLLATERALESTOPPEL In in of Support DlAin-iFfe arorre that that six c.rrrrt assioned dr^nfe.i those assigned was of to I he nl ai nt-if f ' s court. case to Lhat col-LaEeral ^,jt -^m6 32 at state h fi U : ron v i 2-3. ) .lf esLoppei j-he Theref ore, Wood. to ( C v 4 L 6 - 2 16 , appl ies rFlAhed .ases. P14inrifts filing, Lo Judge -.linn "respectfuJ one Wood remanded that PLaintj-ffs precfude innl whife Court, remand and 28.) and a.Lso The C1erk of Uftimatel-y' Doc. one of ls same time, this ruling Those cases same time. the cases to motion case That around the Judge that In and defendants' around five 2-3') at court court federal removed to case state in filed (Id. 32.) bound by a previous CourL is same facts the invofves were af1 this case. refated remanding a (Doc. Remand' to Motion Memorandum a Supplemental filed Plaintiffs case, thj-s any -Lic Iy argue differenL nnc urgefsl f1OC. Lhar the (Id. an order enter Court 3. ) at being After responded Defendants in Judge Wood's order'" with consistent file to directed response/ request ' Pfaintiffs' to opposition a (Doc. 56. ) After estoppel coflateraf that consideration careful is the ' easily Court in inappropriate The case' this that Court of Appeafs recognizes ELeventh Circuit concfudes operate and claim preclusion tbloth issue preclusion parties First, continuum. two-lawsuit a across judgment on the a final to a dispute litigate between separate suit Second, in a later, merits. evldence of one party brings to court the parties, judgment and contends that issue or cfaim an earlier shoufd appfy to prevent her opponent from preclusion decided issue or cause of a previously litigating actlon. R.J. Graham v. C: r. 2OI1). Revnolds Tobacco Co., Judge Wood's cdse was not / -/ - \ .I a m n / - \ - n e n r r I r z f i L e d c a s e . : s L v r r L L I T I J V ! e ! t before this parties". Id. to operate is Court bar not the Court prior separate co.I.Lateraf from at the time Pfaintiffs filed this a the ca se pending suit between the estoppel the considering Lo Remandbecause no prior Motion but litigation, othe-r words, later, Accordingly, Plainc.if f s' II. "a In (1ith 857 F.3d 1169, I214 does merits decision not of existed case' M O T ] O NT O R E M A N D A defendant burden of Adventu re w h o remove s proving to AC ti-' -e Bf coomb of cour L bears federaf 'cdtr ri l qq. Lhe - irr r i s d i . j - i o n . tr 1.1 -"qn -294 (11-rh cir. 2008) F.3d 912 9 6 1, reservations court. (citing Id. has a a Car, 219 court Rent has district jurisdiction, federal state 1505 (11th 85 F.3d 1502' Sheppard, that case to remand:ng the of laws/ The S 1331. action that is Sons Metaf faw federal jurisdiction. ^^+^r^r.l ^r.-^^ federaf 547 U.S. invoke A complaint federal- necessarily to cfaim j urisdiction . that if the of 6'l'lt Constr. Laborers (1983)) WhiIe Vacation noL an (quoting Trust S. Cal., granr of may still compfaint refief to question v. 463 U.S. - . 1. , I ur 308, origrnal t ^l.i r-ufL of McVeigh, Tax Bd. of Franchise for auLomatic Inc. Assurance, Empire Heafthchoice 690 (2006) a substantiaf & be created claim right of Grable 545 U.S' weff-pLeaded plaintiff's depends on resofution law," "a arising cause court' s a state-faw affeging 2B Dow Pharm. need not district the a see also & Mfg., Darue Eng'g v. case a See Merrell 814 (1985); 804, States." pleads faw' However, a plaintiff's (2AA5l . in,,roke Inc, Prods., of under arising United plaintlff a by federat Thompson, 478 U.S. v. the e x a m pI e obvious courts dlstrict acLions of treaties where created civif "aLI or nost is law federaf over federaf to confer{ed rln Constitution, under by If of in favor Diaz v. i,,-icdr^r U.S. C. 3L2 2002) ) . Cir. Enter:. \t 1 , 9 9 6 )) . nrr^,n:r Inc. T a^-.rd as to the existence Congress the (1lth i -^ must be resolved doubl cir. /^,r^+ \\-19vL1rrY Caf. v. Lt 21-28 ^r.i Lf ^^ er', d claim may fafl district courts state-1aw federal :rn.rfanl fFderal The -lef crnr relief. "ri nn arcl d'sn rr] lrrdi .A I ird In a tt-S- Iaw at lssue statute contested substantial in has cases 545 Crable' Second' a 1295. approved in responsibi l ities" U. S. Adventure 3I4; at that has noted meet wilf that .Iooked In was the to thls case. " the important of the test resolution interpret-ation "only Id. legal Also, where a "its the of the inrerpretarion whether or federaf of 1aw, federal an essentia.L element of the fact, requires question disputed woufd reso]ve and law. The Supreme Court of Grable in 54 5 whether a claim and Id. claim. - a 701. determining Suprerne Court j udi cial Gralr'e requires congressional ly "any 1295. at catesorv substantial federal for reso-Lution of the 552 F' 3d at state and 552 F.3d \A1 test jurisdicL-ion. federal federal upset cli enr r^ r he nf outdoors, musL not slin !"nnire. rtar-l r'rrrFsl ion Adventure federal of Outdoors, is Lhat claim musL requj re claim state-Law courL ba lance plarnciIf a an two-part a crafted 1aw tr-lggers a federaf of 314; discricL wheLher staLe-Iaw wl^el heI the at has Cour:t Supreme srrh<f a-t- ial U.S. interpret must court of Id. inrerpretation Fjrst, the if jurisdiction original when deciding law to entitfed the under of state- the a federal issue factuaf questlon resolution is is both looked has Supreme Court proper a governmenL in To assess whether Federaf jurisdiction aL wherher a slate looked state-law traditionalfy Both between Grable, the ra:l r !, r rv v\! n a r! t \L , _,. I u .lal i norarcv with via T,.r lll_: in scate because rhe ar tl^e certified ?1 1 nl:inf courLr governing routinely LAS Lo interprel and adjudlcating a 541 U.S. at questions - federal to 701. distinctions the defendant mail, quiet titfe an IRS at arquinq statute, it that if rhat f ar la,'l the 26 U.S.c. it if 310-11 , The TRS served plainti 5 45 U , S . a t Thp being when an actlon hrz find Supreme Court llfuminate initiated will issues warranted compelent unsubstantla.L nrrrr:l-aqerl sa I e. notice, PLUPcL(y. action plaintiff not the Iaw EmPire and substantial is fourt the Supreme court the issues cfaj-m. Empire, and Grabl-e is AIso, fe{eral refevant any apply the staLe-Ia\'i sLate-law cou"Cts. federal in I itigated court traditional Lhe of woufd upset should federal in resuLt would federal interpreLatjon Lhat Id. jurisdiction. the responsibilities, in decided the addition, of jurisdlction asserting state numerous 315. che frequency Courc has considered be at In interest consiscent and and federal of balance 700. at the to 545 U.S' .issue. Grable, federal 54'1 U. S' Ernpire, cases. " other in case and would be controlling the of dispositive vras serzing I l^o In to tax l-f his nrric--ritLe saLe was ineffecLive S 6335(a) . required r^F I h:f -\ars.\r.r I l v hc co federal irr ri sd' ,'ri'on removed case exiSted the c f l r e q r 'n n r -he clenoneler'l nn AFiar r.rrisdir-f lhaf -cJ - fax cl ) ^ u - - v [' \ jn , . r Court in -htr Al qn -cenlrrrinn of a federal statute. quesL ion was not disposir-Lve of . 1 l -h a r // /-acac ry---^-.1 l|La'rdgcu Lo the U.S,C. rhe Fmni ac E.-^i v^ L'n-1-t.. r Federaf c.ourC." federa I Lhat n.1 - j+ :l c 1 ,^. '.:r r r l L y ite and 1 - -^ r , ^1 -n Lr-La,. qlf q ^l "Intlff Employees SS 8901-8914. I 541 U.S. insurance a m L . n rr frv rc e v . a eL __nlr Healrh BenefiLs at 683. negotiated t.he parties responsibfe f his injuries has -.rn',, .. on Acc The t'was boch numerous o\ carrier ir t_ that e, ri J J ,vl l-c en - - ("EEHBA"). defendant, settlement after Lhe federal Crrhl m r az^i fn n . . \ J .r.l a a tne nf the and i .l i <.'r1<e ina an In - ^ J 1L - L E : ( j L s\- ^-! control -Ling in ?f\o was (r'de'ra l .ar of delermi narion/ :l- 315. LU rptp-p-pJar'i interpretation Il Iaw ld. -,rrra-t rp- ic, i ssUtr-thc Lhe -oat sFltin/-r I .) of governmenr Lhe Iederal l/'l federaf exercised fd. a The ha federal case and would be ro a-.1rrri of facL-bound a Qrrnrama issue leoa I Id. case ld. Teanino ri nLf sir,rrrla- the "'tlhe nroaarrri HaqrL!!r.-y i F.r q n l^i.- of sta!ute, rhc properly 1-,\r seizi-o r.tat:nar.o-l- facr federal that n.f F.J FF:- observed inrcracr fpderal Defendant imnorr:nt L>eronr-rs 'r rhe rr iq n-orzisio- se-sihlv addicion, t-nrr-t Id. a s s e r 1 - -n g o'rhe court Thc notice, because resoluL ion l -L , ^ - n r district inn- foderal l-ho wi.h courL, in-p.p-p12-ion .r:Frinn the that sarr/Fd he L 5 an with received l,o -ha filed insurer medical i re rrer suit ' L yrLs, in jurisdiction of cause alararminrtinn irr r - r L c6 v n . a t : r -yr nt inn n rloef ri rnLf v nf iff's I r! lhc trtrHRA In whi r:h that Court observed setLfement reliaf l-he of breach that because an on r]enenc]ed reor:rad of ann''cal'on that resolution the of 700, n-esenrecj Yt resolut ion of -j.n . the sd icri baLance on in ef f ect was F , m n ir - envis i oned by E m p ir e question rederal Court the in on in rr'\qa- Congress 10 l-FF by aL E m p ir e that The exist. noted would be pure 100. moving that "factof Therefore, woufd not exercising deLicate a by issue simi.Lar: cases , other concerned .1ar, r-,S. and concerned Court chan the \1? :t:E:L'". "--. seme r-onclrrsorv addition, trrni ra Gr.h'a test noL an action the rar-her bound and sj Lual ion-specj fic. " Empire Af so, quesljon Lhe federal not parLies' agreement beLween private at Grable did in controversy Id, the applied jurisdiction question federal r . ' - r / a r n r h a n i -. . r e n . \ / , jrrri maLter asserted proper fo Supreme Court the Emplre, found t .h c for The commonLaw, federal la, , , t:w subjecL plaintiff riohf r for plan. the was was The reimbursement of action The cfaim. ld. Lerms. Iacked court irrricninr-inn federal ^ the state-law contract-a terms Lhe federal because olan's seeking the under rlcfon'lanl- ..-orred rhac the court federal provided care rrnder have Id. In federaf f ederal-srare persona.L ini ury -1-inF (- rdf||rD, + ry, P r ^ -a1f 1 y , L ^ru f , Whife -o iL.- v Fi-f .-s -_^r Ar n.- indicate case on sT-a- rtF ro.rrrlalin^ caser or but whether only Plainl-iffs' ie neol ioonce left to disnnqjt:rre in contested I Grable, multitude was >n^ this lhi s .:qF .r based on PlrinriFFr' state facts t-h...r+i,-< Iaws. be As < this assessj ng of Lawf a task f ha ci cr:h n n , r I . ar l a uhara factuaL nc'n1 i niarnral-:1 would i..ns be man\, In ^l. harq to make r:equired -^-,,1f 11 state or Court' unique .if in . is s u e 315 .a^,,1.t- would s i m p Je resolution in legal , . - ^ n f r . r l l.i n-n . , r - Court A issue from n-esented rhis that far is only "the -!-r',1-a< in of law DLOLL4LLJ determinations av:mnla fedcr:I oF unlikely is g-IgVOTIL diqnncitirrc This LO question Loward of a federaf Ultimate issues the case.'/ 545 U,S. at it ALso. claims. courts, issue federaf based step f aI does not violated .li snosiLive subst.antiaf state iss're 'ha rL - - F L ' a uLr ) 590. at Defendants nnf i I a substanLial U. S. ana]yLical one cla.ims involves best the of 541 oI tha\/ ^-a relief ta and Grabfe nl ,]q right on r6so.Lution E m p jr e , I aw." ^.- 'rl ^-/1rq Plaintiffs' that i ntFrnretat:i these federal- to LJ. between qlnrarra J-La hv yn-LD di'af dependLl federal somewhere in lies nrr1- I i-orl E- 'Lr.rP' | !iE .p J "necessari.ly of case this i l^'- alncor this (-Ut-lr Ls 5 Ld Id. courts, Errn' 1n l ^ r i ! "rr Yiu /! -eru i 6 / . i to i nanaa drry this ci nn nf either Tlr l i lza seve ra l- case. a-lso rely daci i nn For on l^rrr a 1-ho CourL wjLh respect U l l i m a l e lLvr t l ar\/ Dlav c s incl tho - ^ rnr t- - v J L ,/ 1 \ r a r e \- / r ! ev in r^tr116 nf r \ r a! c F- nuf- J J! ' interest in interest The of nonl ie rrnl or Ufion IeSOI ikcl rr OF l-'^ l-n facuual 1y sensiuive the h.a ead nn : action r . r i l -l - ? ass to fedefal h^r!'^^n at .hi.s Arr:in wLerF I he agency (IRS) Grable, in ronlincnr-o lha^-:as federal a of -ho some interest i Ls a wv ! lrrrrrq i r r o l r rv l f l u^ a (-.\')i^FrnS nf have Government's the rhat i c rr: r i or rz contrast the case, r l-i J rnrrqr -r L a u c -\/ r-l^'cf an.l does Government this of j-ha stark ir-ri r irrr cli snrrl.g and its Aclrrenl-r,-e O'rrdonrs- StatuLe.', 552 1296. hecauqF case anr] a-a irrrl:r-ia Corrrl- federal i ^anna rha and nl rinc h:q state i n.,nLi remove to nn:l "r-nnrrraqqi hcon evnl i r:i t fano of case .annr.\\z^.'l il-.ies." i n che this I rz -Fsno-sihil r: I2 I l:r-r. Grable to test federal balance of 545 :d,,lrocci resDonsibllities iudiciaf nn prong second the Defendants rrneoi s Srrnrcme fails also a l I owi no urnrrl d 'ede-:' S i r qr on'f '.:arr 'v is rr- i a< on This /-/:rrrt hpfnra Federal this in F.3d at the outcome narfiFs "centered .^'nna. the In n: COUTL, cases because of other here stands l\., t/r whife F.inally, nrrVafe -h:c may r-1.^ -^^lt^6h^^ cr.ni^r-^ de rI and regulations i nnrri r -..=---v. r -h a crable. ir n a - 1L- Iru! TLorafnra o1da"r1- DFf conrrolljng le lltl lJrut, sraLutes Lhe federal ro na the ral:i bafance i n/'r i-.\ .^mnl^inl- t rA ll r r .'iolaf a alleoi"rn i^n of federal a statute as an efementl of a state cause of action' when Conoress has determined that there should be no nrirr:f a farlar.el cause I / ! l v q 9 v I not does /^.nslrr'rFi^n action of a state claim violation, the -raat:es .r laws- for under: "arising oJ Lhe the United States, " Merretl, 478 U.S. DelendanLs AIIowing their the balance l .-u1 u . \ . . . r o ^ U-a . y . - \ r . f , o. eL u' L i gJ- r in a by articulated -^n-Frr ihar woufd upset the delicate rersnna federal faw woufd Lhat disturhr allowing by a - . r w L ll dalil m- s LUo b ,et : bLrUo u- -q h r ,. / u u: c - rr L sLcrLc--Lctw See Empire, ti nrr nerm'I straightlorward Supreme Court L-Ly --ctlr!LlUlId forum. federa-l S 1 3 3 1 77 . courL based on a possibiliLy Louch upon migiht resofution 2B U.S.C. Pla inti ffs' remove to co federal negl igence claims (quoting 8L7 (L986) 804, I ini'rrrz ?00 al 541 U.S. claims be to bafance federal-state (expressing removed by envisioned Congress) . all For reservations Because eJ - -oa _ .- . \ _ s c rl that J r r r r Ln . r v federa' Mot.ion to reasons, power to have Ju' failed Remand and return entitled r no had l-o an r6move "objectively this case. l3 their a.1rt-- s this reasonable rr burden rrl ql- r-enk fees Y! State concfudes because basis" )in of /.rrant the Court attorneys' Marcin claims. case to However,. the to serious has Plaintiffs' meet -hi not are to r5\] Georgia. Plaintiffs Court this adjudicate Chathan County, Defendants ar-arlnt its about rchi of these Defendants Plaintiffs' Court of for a,anitaf 546 U.S. Corp., mot.ion is Plaintiffs' L4r L32, 200s) F^ra Thara th^j- n.\rLion of deni ed . CONCI,USION After to State carefr.rl R E I { A N D E Dt o Plainfiffsr this (Doc. the reorasf case is 4!; of Court (Doc. Court is 1) is StaLe 43; for Doc. D I R E C T E Dt o GRANTEDIN of Court efto-nevs' remanded to Doc. Pfaintiffs' consideration' the 49) close so oRDEREDrlis Z?#day l are this PART and this Chatham fees State Motion Court, iS County, DENIED. to Remand case Ceorgi a. Because aJ-I pending motions DISMISSEDAs MoOT. The Clerk case. o f S e p t e m l c e r2 0 1 7 . WILL]AM T. MOORE, U N I T E D S T A T E SD I S T R I C T C O U R T DISTRICT OF' GEORGIA SOUTHBRN 1A is

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?