SECOND DI VI SI ON BA RNES, P. J. , R I CKM A N and SELF, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly re ce iv e d i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is i on to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s M ar ch 8, 2017



# In t h e C o u rt o f Ap p e a l s o f Ge o r g i a

A16A1651. M ONDY v. M A GNOLIA ADVANC ED M ATER IALS, INC

.
B A R N E S , Pre siding Judge

. A t torne y M ic ha e l O. M ondy a ppe a ls the tria l c ourt’ s orde r finding him i n

c onte m p t for willfully viola

t ing a n orde r of the c ourt a nd a ppe a ls the c ourt’ s ora l orde r

c om pe lling disc o ve ry
. For the re a sons tha t follow, we a ffirm the c onte m

pt orde r a n d
do not re a c h the disc o v e ry issue

. 1. O n Nove m

be r 23, 2015, the tria l c ourt he ld a he a ring o n M a gnolia ’ s m otion
for c onte m

pt a ga inst M o nd y and ora lly gra nte d it, dire c ting M a gnolia to subm it a

propose d orde r within t e n d a y s. The c ourt the n a nnounc e d its inte ntion to s e t a he a ring

on M a gnolia ’ s e ntitle m e nt to a ttorne y fe e s ba se d on M ondy ’ s viola t ion o f the c ourt’ s
orde r. A we e k la te r, on Nove m be r 30, 2015, M ondy file d a m otion for re c usa l a nd his

own a ffida vit. T he s ubsta nc e of the m otion is tha t t he tria l judge ’ s a c tion

— finding

M ondy in c onte m

pt

— showe d tha t the judge wa s bia sed o r p r e judic e d a ga inst him ,a nd in his a ffida v it M ondy a ve rre d tha t ba se d on the j udge ’ s c om m e nts , f aci al

e xpre s sions, a nd a c t ions d uring the he a ring, “ It wa s c le a r he wa nte d to put m e in ja il.”
On De c e m

be r 15, 2 015, t

he tria l c ourt e nte re d a writte n orde r m e m oria liz ing the

Nove m be r 23, 2 015 o ra l ruling finding M ondy in c o n te m pt, a nd ha lf a n hour la te r the

c ourt i ssue d t

he following orde r: “ I he re by re c use m y se lf volunta

rily from the a

bove

sty le d c a s e
. The Supe rior C ourt Adm inistra tor s h all a ssign the c a se to a diffe re nt
division.”

M ondy a rgue s on a

ppe a l tha t the tria l c ourt e rre d in issuing the c onte m pt orde r

a fte r M on d y file d the m otion for re c usa l, c onte nding tha t a fte r the m otion wa s file d,
the tria l c ourt wa s re quire d t o c e a se a c t ing on the m e rits of t he c a se a nd to de te rm ine
whe the r a nothe r tria l c ourt should he a r the r ecu sal m otion b e fore ruling on the

c onte m p t m otion. B e c a

use the t ria l c ourt did not do so, he a sse rts, the c onte m pt orde r
should be re ve rse d.

[W ] he n a tria l judge in a c a se p e nding i n tha t c ourt is pre s e nte d with a m otion to re c use a c c om pa n ie d by a n af

f i d a vit, the judge ’ s duty will be lim ite d to p a ssing upon the le ga l suffic ie n c y of the a ffida vit, a nd if, a ssum ing a ll the fa c ts a lle ge d in the a ffida vit to b e true , re c usa l would be wa rra nte d , the n a nothe r judge m ust be a ssigne d to he a r t

he m otion to
re c use
. W e note a lso the we l l-se ttle d rule t ha t it is a s m

u c h the duty of a judge not to gra nt the m otion to re c use whe n the m o t ion is le ga l ly

2insuffic ie nt a s it is to re c use w he n t he m o t ion is m e ritorious; nor doe s the sim ple filing of a

n a ffida vit a

utom a tic a l ly

disqua lify

a judge

.

State v

. Fle ming , 245 Ga

. 7 0 0, 702 (1) (267 SE2d 207) (1980). T he proc e dure se t out
in Fle ming for de te rm ining re c usa l wa s c odifie d in Uniform Supe rior C ourt R ule 25. May or & Alde rme n o

f Sav annah v

. Ba t

s on
- Co o k C

o. , 291 Ga

. 1 14, 116, n. 3 (728 SE2d 189) (2012).
USC R 25.1 re quire s tha t m otions to re c use or disqua lify a judge pre siding in a

pa rtic u la r c a se m ust be file d “ not la te r tha

n five (5) da

y s a fte r the a ffia nt first le a rne d
of t he a lle ge d g rounds for d isqua lific a tion, a nd not l a te r tha n te n (10) da

y s prior to the
h e a ring or tria l whic h i s the subje c t of re c usa l o r d isqua lific a tion, unle ss g ood cau s e
be shown for fa ilure to m e e t suc h tim e re q uire m e nts. a nd sha ll not be a llowe d to de l a y
the tria l or proc e e ding.” USC R 25.3 provide s tha t the tria l c ourt “ sha ll te m pora rily

c e a se to a c t upon the m e rits of the m a tte r” to d e te rm ine whe the r the m o tion for re c usa l
is t im e ly , the a c c om

p a ny ing a ffida vit is le ga lly suffic ie nt, a nd the fa c ts a sse rte d the re in

a uthoriz e re c usa l, a

nd if so, a nothe r judge m

ust he a r the m otion.

W he the r the se t

hre e c rite ria a re m e t a re que stions o f l aw, a nd our a ppe lla te

c ourts re v ie w de novo a tria l c ourt’ s de c ision on the se thre shold issue s. May or &
Alde rme n of Sav annah, , 291 Ga

. a t 119 (1). T he issue he re , howe ve r, is not whe the r
3t he tria l c ourt prope rly de te rm ine d the tim ing a nd le ga l suffic ie nc y of the m ot i o n t o

re c u se , but ra t

h e r whe the r the tria l c ourt e rre d i n issuing the writte n orde r of c onte m pt

a fte r M ondy

file d the m otion. 1

W e ha ve found no c a se s, a nd the pa rtie s ha ve c ite d t o none , whic h c onside r the

pa ra m e t e rs of t h e p r o h ibition a ga inst “ a c ting on the m e rits” of t he c a se , o r whic h

c onside r whe the r a m otion for re c usa l re quire s the tria l c ourt to a bsta in from re duc ing

to w riting a

pre viously -a

nnounc e d ora l ruling. The pitfa lls of suc h a re quire m e nt a

re

e vide nt, howe ve r, pa

rtic ula rly whe n the ba sis for the re c usa l m otion is the substa nc e
of the tria l c ourt’ s ora l ruling, a s it wa s he re
. Just a s a pla intiff m a y not fore c lose a judge from a c ting on its ora l ly a nnounc e d
inte ntion to gra nt a de fe nda nt’ s dispositive m otion by dism issing his c o m pla int, we

co n cl ude tha t a pa

rty c a nnot fore c lose a j udge from a c ting on its ora lly a n n o u n ced
inte ntion to gra

nt a m otion for c onte m

pt by filing a m otion to re c u s e
. The princ iple a t the founda tion o f the se de c isions [tha t a pla intiff c a nnot fore c lose suc h a c ti o n s ] is tha t, a fte r a pa rty ha s ta ke n t

he c ha nc e s of litiga tion, a nd knows wha t is t h e ac tua l re sult re a c he d in the suit by the

1 B e c a u se the c ourt the n volunta rily re c use d i tse l f from t he c a se , it ne ve r c onside re d the thre shold issue s. 4tribuna l wh i ch is to pa s s upon it, he c a n not, by e xe rc ising h is right of

volunta ry dism issa l, de prive the opposite pa rty o f the v i c tory thus ga ine d.

Dilla r d L a n d Inv e

stme nts, LLC v

. Fulton C ounty , 295 Ga

. 515519-520 (2) (b) (761
SE2d 282) (2014) (c ita

tion a nd punc tuat io n o m itte d ). The sa m e princ iple a p plie s by

a na logy to the pre se nt c a se
. B a se d on the p ecu l i ar fa c ts of this c a se , we c onc lude tha t M ondy c ould not
fore sta ll the tria l c o u rt’ s ora l finding o f c onte m pt by filing a m otion to re c use
. The tria l

c ourt’ s issua

nc e of a writte n orde r m e m orial i z ing its pre vious ora l ruling wa s not a n

a c tion “ o n the m e rits” of the c a se
. Inste a d, filing the writte n o rde r wa s a n

a dm inistra

tive proc e ss tha

t e ffe c tua te d a ruling m a de be fore M ondy file d his m otion

to re c use
. Thus, we find no m e rit in this e num e ra tion of e rror.
2. M ondy c onte nds tha t the tria l c ourt e rre d in gra n ting M a gnolia ’ s m otion

se e k ing to find him in c onte m p t for viola

ting a p re vious c ourt orde r. B e c a use the tria l

c ourt s ought to punish M ondy for a c tions a lre a dy ta ke n ra the r tha n c oe rc e h im to ta ke

a c tions, the c onte m

p t wa s c rim ina l in na ture ra the r t ha n c ivil. Se e ge ne ra lly , Ensle y v

. Ensle y , 239 Ga . 860, 861 (238 SE2d 920) (1977).
On a ppe a l of a c rim ina l c onte m pt c o nvic tion the a

ppropria te sta nda rd of

a ppe lla te re vie w is whe the r, a fte r v ie wing t he e vide nc e i n the l ight m ost

5fa vora ble t o t h e prose c u tion, a ny ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c ould h a ve found the e sse ntia l e le m e nts of the c rim e be y ond a re a s ona ble doubt. C rim ina l

c onte m pt is tha t w h i ch involve s som e disre spe c tful or c ontum a c ious

c onduc t towa

rd t he c ourt. C onte m

p t of c o urt ha s be e n va

riously de fine d; in its broa d se nse it m e a ns disre ga rd for or disobe d ie nc e of the orde r or
c om m a nd of the c ourt.

In re P atte rson , 331 Ga . App. 45 (769 SE2d 762) (2015) (c ita tion om itte d).

He re , M a gnolia file d a m otion for c onte m pt, a nd a t the e nd of a he a ring on the

m ot i o n , the tria l c ourt gra nte d the c onte m p t m otion in o pe n c o urt. As disc usse d

pre v iously , M ondy file d a m otion t o re c use the j udge a w e e k la te r, a nd two we e ks a fte r
tha t the tria l c ourt issue d i ts writte n o rde r gra nting the c onte m pt m otion, the n issue d

a writte n orde r volunta

rily re c using from the c a se
. In its w ritte n orde r, the tria l c ourt
fo u n d tha t M ondy h a d willfully viola te d t he c o urt’ s orde r e njoining M ondy ’ s c lie nt
from disc losing “ a ny non-public in f or m a tion of M a gnolia , inc l uding but not lim ite d

to tr ade se c re ts a

n d c onfide ntia l inform a tion.” M o ndy viola te d t he orde r, the c ourt
he ld, by a tta c hing c e rta in e x hibits to h is re ply to M a g nolia ’ s m ot ion t o qua sh a subpoe na in a

fe de ra l c ourt c a se a

c om pe titor ha d b rought a ga inst M a gnolia

. In both
its ora l a nd writte n rulings, the t

ria l c ourt re s e rve d the i ssue of w he the r M a gnolia wa s

e ntitle d to a

n a w a rd of a t torne y

fe e s unde r OC GA § 9-15-14.

6In his notic e of a ppe a l, M ondy de signa

te d 14 doc um e nts to be inc lude d in the

a ppe lla te re c ord a

nd dire c te d t

he tria l co u r t c le rk to om i t e ve ry thing e lse from the

a ppe lla te re c o rd. 2 The re s ulting re c ord is 950 pa ge s long, b ut w hi le the orde r of

c onte m pt q u ote s a portion o f the e a rlie r injunc t ion tha t se rve d a s the ba sis for its

c onte m p t finding, the re c o rd doe s n o t i n clude a c o py of tha t e a rlie r injunc tion. Nor
doe s it c onta in a c opy of M a gnolia ’ s pre vious m o t i on f o r c onte m pt, whic h a lle ge d a
viola tion of a diffe re nt t

ria l c ourt’ s orde r or of this t ria l c o urt’ s de nia l of tha t pre vious

m otion, a ll of whic h m a y be r e le va nt to t he tria l c ourt’ s c onte m

p t finding. Fina lly , while the re c ord doe s c onta in a c opy of the fe de ra l c ourt ple a d ing M ondy file d, whic h

w as i nc lude d in M ondy ’ s m otion to re c use the tria l c ourt in this c a se , the a ppel l at e

re c o rd d oe s not c onta i n a c opy of the e x hibits tha t w e re a tta c h e d to t he fe de ra l ple a ding, whic h the tria l c ourt found to be “ non-public ,” subje c t to its injunc tion, a n d
disc lose d in viola t ion of its injunc tion.

I n l ight of t

he inc o m ple t e re c ord, we m

ust a ffirm the tria l c ourt’ s finding o f

c onte m p t.

2 OC G A § 5-6-37 dire c ts a n a ppe lla nt incl u d e i n h i s notic e of a p pe a l “ a de signa tion of those

portions of the

re c ord to be om itte d from the re c ord on a ppe a l.” Listing the doc um e nts o m itte d a llows this c ourt to se e whic h d oc um e nts we re pre s e nte d to the tria l c o urt but e xc l ude d from the a p pe lla te re c ord.
73. Fina lly , M ondy e num e ra te s a s e rror tha t the tria l c ourt g ra nte d M ag nolia ’ s

m otion t o c o m

pe l disc ove ry re sponse s a nd its re la te d re que st for a ttorne y fe e s. The tria l

c ourt he a rd M a gnolia ’ s m otion to c om pe l a fte r he a ring its m otion for c onte m pt, ora lly

gra n te d the m otion a s to e a c h m a tte r re que ste d, a nd ga v e M a g nolia 20 da y s to pre pa

re

a propose d order

. U n l ike the c onte m pt m otion, howe ve r, the tria l c ourt’ s ruling o n
M a g nolia ’ s m otion t o c om pe l disc ove ry re sponse s wa s not re duc e d to writing a nd file d
be fore the tria l c ourt volunta rily re c use d from

the c a se
. An “ ora l orde r [is] ne ithe r fina l nor a ppe a la ble until a nd unle ss it is re duc e d to writing, signe d by the judge , a n d file d with the c le rk.” Hill v

. State , 281 Ga

. 795, 799 (642 SE2d 64) (2007). Se e a lso Tite lman v

. Ste dman , 2 77 G a. 4 6 0 , 4 61 (591 SE2d 774) (2003) (“ [T] he re c a n be no a ppe a l from a n ora l a nnounc e m e nt tha t a j udgm e nt
will be re nde re d, s inc e no j udgm e nt is e ffe c t ive until it is signe d by the judge a nd file d
with the c le rk.” (c ita

tion a nd punc t ua tion om itte d)).
Ac c ordingly , we find no m e rit to M ondy ’ s e n u m e ra tions o f e rror re la te d to the
tria l c ourt’ s ora l disc ove ry rulings.

J udgme nt affirme d. Ric k

man and Se lf, J

J ., c onc u r
.

8