THI RD DI VI SI ON DOYLE, P. J.

, M cFA DDEN, P. J.

, and HODGES, J.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed 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 ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S

C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN

TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

M ar ch 16, 2022



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A1 57 6

. A & M HOSPITALITIES LLC et a l

. v

. ALIM CHANDANI.

D O Y LE , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

In t h e th i rd ap p earan ce o f t h i s cas e b efo re t h i s Co u rt

, 1 A & M Ho sp i t al i t i es ,

LLC; J DS&J En t erp ri s es , LP; Dav i d B. M o t l ey ; J an e P. M o t l ey ; M o t M an co , In c.;

M o t M a n co , L LC; JPM A d vert i si n g, In c.; an d D J Lan d & Dev el op m en t

, LLC,

(co l l ect i v el y , “ t he d efen d an t s ”) ap p eal t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ord ers : g ran t i n g Pren i t a

Al i m ch an d an i (“ t he p l ai n ti ff”) l e a v e t o fi l e a s eco n d am en d ed co m pl ai n t (“ SAC”)

1 See A& M Ho s p it a li t i es v. A l i mch a n da n i

, 3 51 Ga. Ap p

. 3 1 0 (8 2 8 SE2 d 6 1 5 ) (2 0 1 9) (“ Al i mch a n da n i I

”) (affi rm i n g t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s a p p o i n t m en t o f Ch ri s t o p h er Co h i las as an au d i t or )

, c e r t

. den i ed Feb

. 1 0

, 2 0 2 0 ; A& M Ho sp i t a l i ti es et a l

. v. Al i mch an d

an i

, 3 59 Ga. Ap p

. 2 7 1 (8 5 6 SE2 d 7 0 4 ) (2 0 2 1 ) (“ Al i mch a n d

a n i II ”) ( a f f i r m i n g t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s co n fi rm at i o n o f t h e arb i t rat i o n award an d rev ers i n g t h e

o rd ers ap p o i n t in g Co h i l as as a “ s p eci al m as t er/ au d i t o r” an d req u i ri n g t h e d efen d an t s

t o p ay h i s au d i t o r fees p ri o r t o fi n al ju d g m en t ).i n s t ead o f d i s m i s s in g t h e cas e bas ed o n res ju di cat a; d en y i n g th e d efen d an t s ’ m o t i o n

t o s t ay l i t i gat io n an d g ran t i n g t h e p l ai n ti ff’ s m o t io n t o s t ay t h e 2 0 2 0 arb i t rat i o n;

d e n y i ng t h e d efen d an t s ’ m o t i o n t o recu se; an d g ran t i n g t h e p l ai n t iff’ s m o t i o n t o

ap p oi n t a recei v er. Fo r t h e reas o n s t h at fo l l ow, we rev ers e an d rem an d t h e cas e.

Th i s cas e h as a p ro t ract ed p ro ced u ral h i s t o ry as rel ay ed i n Al i mch a n d

a n i I :

Th e reco rd s h o ws t h at Al i m ch an d an i an d J an e an d Dav i d M o t l ey jo i nt l y

cr e a t e d A&M i n 1 9 9 8 t o d ev el o p an d o p erat e a Ham p t o n In n in Lak e

Park

, Geo rg i a. O ri g i n al ly

, J an e M o t l ey o w n ed a 7 5 p ercen t i n t eres t i n

A&M an d Al i m ch an d an i o wn ed 25 p ercen t

. Fro m t h e b eg i nn i n g ,

o p erat i o n al co n t ro l an d d eci s i o n m ak i ng fo r A&M was v es t ed wi th Jan e

M o t ley

, wh o w a s d e s i g n at ed A&M ’ s m an ag er. In 2 0 0 6

, h al f of Jan e

M o t ley ’ s 7 5 p ercen t in t eres t was t ran s ferred t o Dav i d M o t ley

, an d t h en

t h e i n t eres t s o f J an e an d Dav id M o t l ey were bo t h t ran s ferred t o JDS&J

En t erp ri s es , L P

, a l i m i t ed p art ners hi p co m p ri s i n g o f Jan e an d Dav i d

M o t ley an d t h ei r ch i l d ren

. A t t h e s am e t i m e, Dav id M o t l ey was m ad e a

co -m an ag er o f A&M wi th J an e M o tl ey

.

In Oct o b er 2 01 7

, Al i m ch an d an i fi l ed th e i n s t an t l aws ui t ag ai n s t

. . . th e

d efen d an t s []

, s eek i n g t h e ju d i ci al d i s so l u t i on o f A & M a nd r a ising c la im s

o f b reach o f f

i d u ci ary d u t i es an d v i o l at i o n s o f Geo rg i a’ s Rack et eer

In fl u en ced an d Co rru p t Org an i zat i on s Act (“ RICO”), OCGA § 16 -1 4 -1

et s eq

. I n h er co m

p lai n t

, Al i m ch an d an i al l eg ed t h at bet ween 2 0 0 8 an d

2 0 1 4

, t h e Mo t l ey s m i s ap p ro p ri at ed

, was t ed

, an d ab u s ed A&M ’ s as s et s , fai l ed t o m ak e req ui red di s t ri b u ti o n s t o h er as a p art n er o f A&M

, fai led

2t o p ro v i d e h er wi t h n o t i ce o f t h e t ran s fer o f J an e M o t l ey ’ s i n teres t t o

Dav i d M o t l ey an d J D S&J En t erp ri s es , LP, fa i l ed to p ro vi d e h er w i t h

req u ired fi n an ci al i n fo rm at i o n , t hreat en ed t h e e m p l o y m en t o f

Al i m ch an d an i ’ s h u sb an d (a h o t el o p erat io n s m an ag er at A &M ), fai led

t o h o l d an n u al m eet i n g s , an d fai l ed t o co m m u ni cat e wi t h h er o r d eal i n

g o o d f a it h

. Al i m ch an dan i al l eg ed t h at t h i s co n d u ct occu rred i n an

ap p aren t effo rt t o freeze h er o u t o f A&M an d t o t ran s fer b us i n es s away

fro m A&M t o o t h er co m p an i es o w n ed b y t h e M o t l e ys an d in wh ich

Al i m ch an d an i d i d n o t h av e an o wn ers h i p i n teres t

.

At t h e s am e t i m e t h at sh e fi l e d th e co m p l ai n t, Al i m ch an dan i al s o fi led

a m o t io n fo r t h e ap p o i n tm en t o f a recei v er an d rel at ed i n ju n ct i v e rel i ef,

al l eg i n g th at s h e wo u ld b e “ s u b ject ed t o i m

m ed i at e an d irrep arab l e

i n ju ry , l o s s an d d am ag e” i f A&M was n o t p l aced i n a recei v ers hi p

. 2

On No v em

b er 2 2

, 2 01 7

, t h e d efen d an t s m o v ed t o co m p el arb i t rat i o n p u rs u an t

t o t he arb i t rat i o n cl au s e i n t h e p art i es ’ Op erat i n g Ag reem en t . Th e p l ai n t i ff o p p o s ed

t h e m o t i on , an d t h e tri al co u rt d en i ed i t w i t ho u t ex p lan at i o n i n J u l y 2 0 1 8

. On J an u ary

1 7

, 20 1 8, wh i l e h er op po s i t i o n t o t h e d efen d an t ’ s m o t io n t o co m pel arb i t rat i o n

rem ai n ed p en d i ng , t h e p l ai n ti ff swi t ch ed g ears an d fi l ed a d em an d fo r arb i t rat i o n wi th

AAA.

2 Al i mch a n da n i I

, 3 5 1 Ga. Ap p. at 3 1 0 -3 1 1

.

3In J u l y 2 0 1 8, t he tri al co u rt ap p o i n t ed Ch ri s t o p h er Co h i las as “ recei v er” “ fo r

t h e p urp os es of au di t an d d is co v ery ,” 3 o rd eri ng “ t h at Co h il a s was t o recei v e

‘ reas o n ab l e co m

p en s at i o n ’ f

o r h i s s erv i ces , pai d b y A&M .” 4 Fo l lo wi n g t h e Au g u s t

2 0 1 8 AAA arb i t rat i o n, t h e arb i t r a t o r i s s u e d a fi n al award o n Sep t em ber 2 8

, 2 0 1 8,

fi nd i ng in fav o r o f th e d efen dan t s o n a l l cl ai m s an d award i ng t h em dam ag es i n t h e

am ou n t o f $ 9 5 ,0 9 3

. 5 2

, wh i ch i n cl u d ed $ 7 0 ,8 0 0 fo r at t o rn ey fees

. 5 O n Oct o b er 1,

2 0 1 8

, th e d efen dan t s m o v ed to co n fi rm th e award

, an d o n De cem b er 2 8, 2 0 1 8

, t h e

p l ai n t i ff m o v ed t o v acat e i t

. 6

On No v em

b er 3 0

, 2 0 1 8

, t h e p l ai n t i ff fi led an am en d ed co m p l ai n t s eek i n g

ju d i ci al d i s s o l u t io n o f t h e co m p an y , ap p o in t m en t o f a recei v er, an d o th er eq u i t ab l e

rel i ef. M ean wh i l e, t h e d efen d an t s h ad ap p eal ed t h e l im it e d r e c e i v er o rd er, an d o n

M ay 15

, 2 0 1 9, t h i s Co u rt affi rm ed t h e ap p o i n t m en t, “ co n cl u d i n g t h a t b a s e d o n t h e

3 Id . at 3 1 2

.

4 Al i mch a n da n i II

, 3 5 9 Ga. Ap p . at 2 7 1 -2 72

.

5 See i d . at 2 7 2

.

6 See i d

.

4l an g u ag e o f t h e o rd er, t h e t ri al co u rt h ad act ual l y ap p o in t ed Co h il as as an au d i t o r, n ot

a recei v er, an d t h at t h e ap p o i n t m en t was n o t an ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n .” 7

Du ri n g t h e p en d en cy o f t h e ap p eal

, th e d efen d an t s fi l ed a m o ti o n t o cl ari fy t h e

ap p oi n t m en t o rd er. 8 Up o n rem an d o n J un e 1 4, 20 1 9, t h e d efen d an t s m o v e d fo r

s u m m ary ju d g m en t

, arg u i n g th at al l o f t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s cl ai m s were o r co u l d h av e b een

as s ert ed i n t h e arb i t rat i o n

. Th e reco rd d o e s n o t refl ect a ru l i n g o n t h e d efen d an t s ’

s u m m ary ju d g m en t m o t i o n

.

On Oct o b er 7

, 2 0 19

, t h e t ri al co u rt i s s u ed an o rd er (“ t h e s p eci al m as t er/ au d it o r

o rd er”) cl ari fy i n g Co hi l as ’ s ap p o i n t m en t, ex p l ai n i n g t h at Co h i l as

was ap p o i n t ed as an au d i t or an d s p eci al m as t er a s t h os e t erm s are

co n t em p l at ed an d a u t ho ri zed b y OCGA § § 9 -7 -1

, 9 -7 -2

, 9 -7 -3

, an d

Un i fo rm Su p eri o r Co u rt Ru l e 4 6. Sp eci fi cal l y , th e co u rt v es t ed Co hi l as

wi t h au t ho ri t y to

, am o n g o t h er t h i n g s : co n du ct an acco u n ti n g o f A &M ;

h ear m o t i on s , al l o w am en d m en t s , an d p as s u p o n al l q u es ti o n s o f l aw an d

fact ; ad d res s al l pret ri al an d d is co v ery m at t ers ; m o n i t o r i m p l em en t at i o n

o f an d co m

p l i an ce wi t h al l o rd ers o f t he co u rt

, an d h e i s p erm i t ted t o

i m p o s e u p o n a p art y an y n o n -co n t em p t s an ct i o n p ro vi d ed by O CGA § §

9 -1 1

- 3 7 an d 9 -1 1 -4 5 ; co n du ct al l t ri al p ro ceed i n g s an d m ak e an d

reco m m en d fi n d i n g s o f fact o n al l i s s u es t o b e d eci ded by t h e co u rt

7 Id

.

8 See i d

.

5wi t h ou t a j ury ; an d en g ag e i n ex p art e co m m u n i cat i o ns wi t h t h e p art i es ,

co u n s el

, an d t he tri al co u rt fo r cert ai n p u r p o s es

. Th e s p eci al

m as t er/ au d it o r o rd er al s o res t at ed t he p ay m en t p ro v is i o n i n t h e i n i t i al

o rd er, wi t h m i n o r ch an g es

. 9

Th ereaft er, o n Oct o ber 2 3

, 2 0 19

, th e p l ai n t i ff m o v ed fo r l eav e t o fi l e t h e SAC

ad d in g s ev eral cau s es o f act i o n ag ai n s t t h e t h en -ex is ti n g d efen d an ts a n d a d d i n g as

p art i es M o t M an Co

., In c.; M o t Man Co

, LLC; J PM Ad v ert i s i n g , L L P ; an d DJ Lan d

Dev el o pm en t

, In c. On D ecem b er 6

, 2 0 19

, aft er t h e d efen d a n t s fi l ed a m an d am u s

p et i t i o n in s u p eri or co u rt

, an d m o re t h an a y ear aft er t h e d efen dan t s m o v ed fo r

co n fi rm at i o n o f th e award

, t h e t ri al co u rt co n fi rm ed t h e arb i t r a t i o n award

. 1 0 Th e

d efen d an t s ap p eal ed t he s p eci al m as t e r / a u d i t o r ap p o in t m en t o rd er o n Decem b er 6,

2 0 1 9 , an d t h e p l ai n t i ff ap p eal ed t h e co nfi rm at i o n o n Decem b er 1 7 , 2 0 1 9

. 1 1

On Feb ru ary 1 7

, 2 0 2 0, Co h i l as en tered an o rd er g ran ti n g t h e p l ai n t iff’ s m o t i o n

fo r l eav e t o fi le t h e SAC

. 1 2 O n J u n e 1

, 2 0 2 0

, th e defen d an t s fi l ed an arb i t rat i o n

d em an d wi t h AAA d em an d i n g th at t h e p l ai nt i ff arb i t rat e t h e cl ai m s rai s ed in h er SAC

9 Id . at 2 7 2 -2 7 3

.

1 0 See i d . at 2 7 3

.

1 1 Th e ap p eal s were co n s o l i d at ed i n Al i mch a n d a n i II , 3 5 9 Ga. Ap p . at 2 7 3

.

1 2 Th e t ri al co urt ap p ro v ed t h e Feb ru ary 1 7 , 2 0 2 0 o rd er o n J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 2 0

.

6an d m o v ed t o st ay t h e l i t i gat i o n p en d i n g arb i t rat io n

. O n J u n e 1 7

, 2 02 0

, t he p l ai n t i ff

m o ved t o s t ay arb i t rat i o n

. O n Au g u s t 1 3

, 2 0 2 0

, t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered an o rd er s t ay i n g

a r b i t r a t i o n an d d en y i n g th e d efen d an t s ’ m o t io n t o s t ay th e l it i g at i on , fi nd i n g t h at

d efen d an t A&M h ad wai v ed i t s p urp o rt ed ri g h t t o co m pel arb i t rat i o n b y “ fai l i [n g ] to

ch al l en g e t h e p o rt io n o f t h e [c] o u rt ’ s 2 0 1 8 [o ] rd er [d ] en y in g [a] rb i t rat i o n o n ap p eal .”

On Oct o b er 1

, 2 0 2 0

, th e d efen d an t s fi l ed a m o t i on t o d i s q u al i fy an d recu s e t h e

t ri al ju d g e, al l eg i ng t hat h e h ad d i r e c t ed t h e s u peri o r co urt cl erk to n o t t ran s m i t t h e

reco rd t o t h i s Co u rt ev en t h o u g h t h e r e co rd i n Al i mch a n d an i II was read y

. On

No v em b er 1 3

, 2 0 2 0 , t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t he m o t i o n wi t h o u t as s i g ni n g t h e recu s al

m o ti o n t o an o th er ju d g e.

O n J a n u ary 2 6, 2 0 2 1

, t he t ri al co u rt ap p o i n ted a recei ver “ t o o vers ee

. . .

A&M ’s a s s e t s , acco u nt s , an d al l o t h er i n t eres t s cu rren t l y o wn ed b y

. . . A&M

,

i n cl u d i n g al l o f i t s s u b s i di ari es ” an d t o t urn o v er t o h i m

al l as s et s , wh erev er l o cat ed

, i n t h ei r en t i ret y an d u n al t ered

, i n cl u d i n g b u t

n o t l i m i t ed t o A&M ’ s h ot el s , p ro p e r tie s , a sse ts, M 3 a c c o u n t i n g s oft ware,

d o cu m en t s , b o o k s an d reco rd s , ch eck s , cert i fi cat es o f d ep os i t

, fi n an ci al

s t a t e m en t s, b an k acco u n t s , fi n an ci al i n s t ru m en t s, m o n ey , recei v ab l es , k ey s t o an y an d al l s ecu ri t y bo x es an d t he ex act l ocat i o n o f s ai d s ecu ri t y

b o x es , an d eq u i p m en t

.

7In t h e o rd er, t h e t r i a l co u rt co n cl u d ed t h at “ t here i s a cl ear an d u rg en t n eed fo r a

recei v er b ecau s e

. . . t here is a s i g n i fi can t ri s k t h at A &M ’ s co rp o rat e as s et s , wh i ch are

2 5 [p ercen t ] o wn ed b y [t h e p ] l ai n t i ff wi l l b e d i s s i pat ed ,” n o ti n g a p ri o r $ 6 m i l l i o n

t ran s fer fro m A&M t o d efen d an t s M o t M an Co

. an d J DS&J

. Th e d efen dan t s fi l ed t h e

n o t i ce o f ap p eal i n t h e i ns t an t cas e o n J an u ary 2 9 , 2 0 2 1.

On M arch 1 6

, 2 02 1, th is Co u rt i s s u ed it s o p in i on in Al i mch a n d a n i II

, affi rm i n g

t h e arb i t rat i o n co n fi rm at i on o rd er 1 3 b u t rev ers i n g t h e ap p o in t m en t ord er, h o l d i n g t h at

Co h i las w as d i s q u al i fi ed as a s p eci al m as t er fo r a m u l t i t u d e o f reas o n s an d t h at h e was

p erfo rm i n g “ fu n d am en t al l y i n co m p at i b l e d u t ies

. . . at o d d s wi t h t h e ro l e o f a s p eci al

m as t er.” 1 4 Th i s Co u rt al s o h el d t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y req u i ri n g t h e d efen d an t s

t o p ay Co h i l as ’ s au d i t or fees p ri o r t o fi n al ju d g m en t. 1 5

On M ay 6

, 2 0 21

, b efo re t h e rem i t t i t u r in Al i mch an d an i II was i s s ued

, t h e t ri al

co u rt en t ered a s u a s po n t e o rd er t o “ ad d res s ” t h i s Co u rt ’ s M arch 1 6

, 2 02 1 o p i n i o n an d

1 3 See i d . at 2 7 7 -2 8 3 (3 ).

1 4 Id . at 27 4 -2 7 6 (1 ).

1 5 See i d . at 2 7 6 -2 7 7 (2 ).

8“ p ro v i d e g u i dan ce t o th e p art i es .” 1 6 Th erei n, t he tr ial co u rt “ fo rm al l y rem o v e[d ] ” fro m

Co h i las an y s p eci al m as t er res p o n s i bi l i t i es i n l i g h t o f th e ap p o i n t m en t o f a recei v er,

n o t i n g th at t h e co u rt wo u l d p erfo rm an y ad d it i o n al ju d i ci al fu nct i o n s g o i n g fo rward

.

Th e co u rt al s o ad d res s ed t h e au d i t o r fees

, s t at in g t hat co n t rary to t h i s Co u rt ’ s h o l d i n g,

t h e d efen d an t s had n o t b een p rev io u s l y req u i red t o ad v an ce p ay m en t s fo r fees to

C o h i l as ; i n s t ead t he p ri o r fee award s “ were ‘ i n t eri m al lo cat i o n s ’ wh i ch t h e [ c ]o u r t

wi l l u l t im at el y co n s i d er an d as ses s i n a fi n al ju d g m en t ” as “ i n t en d ed b y t h e st at u t o ry

fram ewo rk .” 1 7

On J u ne 2 5 , 2 02 1 , t h e d efen d an t s fi l ed i n t h is Co u rt a p et i ti o n fo r m an d am u s

ag ai n s t t h e t ri al co u rt ju d g e, Bri an A. M cDan iel

, s eek i ng an o rd er (1 ) co m p el l i n g h i m

t o v acat e h i s M ay 6, 2 0 21 o rd er, wh i ch t h ey al leg e co n fl i ct s wi t h t h i s Co u rt ’ s o p i n i o n

i n Al imch a nd

a n i II ; (2 ) d i rect i n g t h e ret u rn , b on d

, or es cro w o f al l fees t h e d efen d an t s

1 6 W e n o t e t h at t h e t ri al co u rt l ack ed ju ri s d ict i o n t o i s su e t h e o rd er b efo re t h e

rem i t t i t ur was i s s u e d

, fu rt h er ex acerb at i n g th e p ro ced u ral co n fu si on i n t h i s cas e by

fai l i n g t o s tay t h e li t i g at i o n pen d i n g ap p eal

. See Ma s s ey v. Ma s s ey , 2 9 4 Ga. 1 6 3

, 1 6 6 (3 ) (7 51 SE2 d 3 3 0) (2 0 1 3 ) (“ [A] n ap p el l at e co u rt m ai n t ai n s ju ri s d i ct i o n ov er a cas e

u n t i l it has i s su ed t h e rem i t t i t u r an d t h e rem i t ti t ur has b een recei v ed an d fi l ed i n t h e cl erk ’ s offi ce o f t he co u rt b el o w. On l y t h en d o es t h e t ri al co u rt reg ai n ju ri s d i ct i o n to

t ak e fu rt h er act i o n wi t h res p ect t o t h e ju d g m en t ap peal ed .”) (ci t at i o n an d pu n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ).

1 7 Th e co u rt “ affi rm [ed ] ” t h e p as t fee awar d s a s “ f e e al l o cat i o n award s ” an d

indic a t ed t h at i t wo u l d co n ti n u e t o co n s i d er fu t u re i n t eri m fee ap pl i cat i o n s b y Co h i l as

.

9were req u i red t o p ay t o Co h i l as ; an d (3 ) d i rect i n g t h a t C o h i l as b e rem o v ed an d

d i s q u al i fi ed fro m

s erv i n g i n t h i s m at t er. 1 8

1

. Res j u di ca t a

. Th e d efen d an ts co n t en d t h at res ju d i c a t a b a rs t he p l ai n t i ff’ s

cl ai m s rai s ed i n t h e SAC. W e ag ree.

(a) As an in i t i al m at t er, we reject t h e p l ai n t iff’ s arg um en t t h at t h i s i s s u e i s n ot

ri pe becau se t h e t ri al co u rt h as n o t y et r u l e d o n i t

. Aft er th e d efen d an t s m o v ed fo r

s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n t he b as i s o f res ju d i cat a i n J u n e 2 0 1 9

, th e p l ai nt i ffs fi l ed t h e

m o ti o n fo r leav e t o fi l e t h e SAC i n Oct o b er 2 0 19

. In J u n e 2 0 2 0

, t h e t ri al co u rt g ran t ed

t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s m o t i o n fo r l eav e t o fi l e t h e SAC w i t ho u t r u l i n g o n th e s u m m ary

ju d g m en t m o t i o n

. Th e co urt wen t o n t o s tay arb i t rat i o n o f t h e cl ai m s rai s ed i n t h e

SAC, d en y t h e d efen dan t s ’ m o t i o n t o s t a y l i t i g a t i o n o f t h o se cl ai m s , d en y t h e

d efen d an t s ’ m o t i o n t o r e c u s e , a p p o i n t a recei v er, an d i s s u e th e M ay 2 0 2 1 o rd er

referri n g t o t h e recei v er an d n o t i n g t h at t h e co u rt i nt en d ed t o ru l e o n fu t u re ju d i ci al

fu n ct i o n s

. T h es e act i o n s , co m b i n ed wi th t he t ri al co u rt ’ s ap p aren t refu s al t o ru l e o n

t h e s u m m ary ju d g m en t th at h as b een p en d i n g fo r o v er two y ears , m ad e i t ap p a r e n t

t h at t h e t ri al co u rt i s p erm i t t i ng t h e p l ai n t i ff t o p urs u e t h e cl ai m s rai s ed i n her SAC

1 8 Th e d efen d an t s fi l ed t h e p et i t io n fo r m an d am u s i n Cas e N o

. A2 0 A1 6 8 8,

wh i ch ap p eal was ad d res sed i n Al i mch a n d a n i II

, 3 5 9 Ga

. A p p

. at 2 7 5 -2 8 3

. Th e

p et i t i o n rem ai n s p en di ng

.

10an d reject i n g t h e d efen dan t s ’ r e s ju d i cat a arg u m en t s

. 1 9 In d eed

, wi t h o u t s u ch an

i m p l i ci t ru li n g , t h e n eed fo r an d p u r p o s e o f t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ad d i t i o nal o rd ers are

i n ex p l i cab l e.

(b ) W e no w t u rn t o t h e i ss u e p res en t ed

. “ Res ju d i cat a act s as a p ro ced u ral b ar

t o cl ai m s t h at were rai s ed o r co u l d h av e b een rai s ed i n a p ri o r act i o n

. ” 2 0 Pu rs u an t to

OCGA § 9 -1 2-4 0, “ [a] j u d gm en t o f a co u rt of co m pet en t j u r is d i ct i o n s h al l b e

co n cl u s i v e b et ween t h e s am e p art i es an d t h ei r p ri v i es as t o al l m at t ers p u t i n i s s u e o r

wh i c h u n d e r t h e ru l es of l aw m i g h t h av e b een p u t i n i ss u e i n t h e cau s e wh erei n t h e

ju d g m en t was ren d ered u n ti l t h e ju d g m en t i s rev ers ed o r s et as i d e.”

1 9 See, e.g ., Tyl er v. Th o mp s o n , 3 0 8 Ga. Ap p

. 2 2 1

, 2 2 3 (2 ) (b ) (7 0 7 SE2 d 1 3 7 ) ( 2 0 1 1 ) ( f i n d in g t h at “ i t i s p res u m ed t h at t h e co urt i m p l i ci t l y d en i ed

. . . m o t i o n s t o

co m p el [wh en i t g ran t ed ] su m m ary ju d g m en t ” an d affi rm i n g t ri al co u rt ’ s ju d g m en t ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); Y

a t es v. CACV o

f Co lo r a d

o , 3 0 3 G a. Ap p

. 4 25

, 43 3 (3 ) (6 9 3

SE2 d 6 2 9 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (affi rm i n g “ t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s i m p l i ci t d en i al ” o f m o t i o n t o v acat e arb i t rat i on award ); Ad

es v. W er th er , 25 6 G a. Ap p

. 8

, 9 -1 0 (1 ) (5 67 SE2 d 3 4 0) (2 0 0 2 ) (d i s ag reei n g w i t h t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s “ i m p l ici t ” fi n d i n g th at a co n t ract ex i s t ed ); S t a t e v. Bl a ckwel l

, 2 4 5 Ga. Ap p

. 1 3 5, 1 42 (2 ) (d ) (5 3 7 SE2 d 4 57 ) (2 00 0 ) (h o l d i n g t h at reco rd

s u p p ort s t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s “ i m p li ci t [] ” fi n di n g o f b ad fai t h ).

2 0 Br ya n Co u n ty v. Y

a t es Pa vi n g & Gr a d i n g Co

. , 2 8 1 Ga. 3 6 1

, 3 6 3 (6 3 8 SE2 d

3 0 2 ) (2 00 6 ). W e no te t h at t h e i s s u e of t h e res ju d i cat a effect of a p rev i o u s arb i t rat i o n

o n a s ub s eq u en t arb i t rat i o n i s a m at t er fo r d et erm i n at i o n b y t he t ri al co u rt

. See i d

. at
3 6 3 -3 6 4

.

11“ Th ere are t h ree p rereq u i s i t es t o t h e ap p l i cat i o n o f res ju d i cat a: (1 ) i d en t i ty o f

t h e cau s e o f a c t i o n ; (2 ) i d en ti t y o f t he part i es o r t h ei r p ri v i es ; an d (3 ) a p rev i ou s

ad ju d i cat i o n o n t h e m eri t s b y a co u rt o f co m

p et en t ju ri sd i ct i o n

. ” 2 1

Res ju d i cat a ap pl i es e v e n i f s om e n ew fact u al al l eg at io n s h av e b een

m ad e, s o m e n ew rel i ef h as b een req ues t ed

, o r a new d efen d an t h as b een

ad d ed

. I t i s o n l y wh ere t h e m eri ts were n o t a n d co u l d n ot hav e b een

d et erm i ned u n d er a p ro p er p res en t at i o n an d m an ag em en t o f t h e cas e t hat

res ju d i cat a i s no t a vi ab l e d efen se. If, p u r s u a n t t o an ap p ro p ri at e

h an d l i n g o f t h e ca s e , t h e m eri t s were o r co u ld h av e b een d et erm i n ed

,

t h en t he d efen s e i s v al i d

. 2 2

Here, t h e t hi rd p ro ng

– a p rev i o u s a d j u d i cat i o n o n t h e m eri t s by a co u rt o f

co m p et en t ju ri s d i ct i o n

– was s at i s fi ed b y th e p ri o r arb i t rat i o n

. 2 3 T h e fi rs t p ro ng

–

2 1 S mi t h v. Lo ckr i d

g e , 2 8 8 Ga. 1 8 0

, 1 8 5 (4 ) (7 0 2 SE2 d 8 5 8 ) (2 0 10 ).

2 2 ( C i t a t io n s an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t ted ; em ph as i s i n o ri g in al .) Y

at es Pa vi n g &

Gr a di n g Co

. v. Br

ya n Co u n t

y , 2 8 7 Ga. Ap p

. 8 0 2

, 8 0 5 (2 ) (6 5 2 SE2 d 8 5 1 ) (2 0 0 7 ),

ci t i n g Da l t o n Pa vi n g & Co n st r

. v. S o u th Gr een Co n s t r

. o

f Ga

. , 2 84 Ga. Ap p. 5 0 6

, 5 0 8 (6 4 3 SE2 d 7 5 4 ) (2 0 0 7 ), Gr een v. Bd . o f Di r ect o r s o f Pa r k Cl i f f Un i t Own er

s As sn

. , 2 7 9 Ga. Ap p

. 5 6 7

, 5 6 9 (2 ) (6 3 1 SE2 d 7 69 ) (2 0 0 6 ), Ben n et t v. Co t t o n , 2 4 4 Ga. Ap p. 7 8 4

, 7 8 5 (1 ) (5 36 SE2 d 8 0 2 ) (2 0 0 0 ), Pi ed mo n t Co t t o n Mi l l

s v. W o el p er , 2 6 9 Ga. 1 0 9,

1 1 0 (4 98 SE2 d 2 5 5 ) (1 9 9 8 ).

2 3 See Y a t es Pa vi n g , 2 8 7 Ga. Ap p

. at 80 5 (2 ) (“ T h e d o ct ri n e o f res ju d i cat a

ap p li es t o arb i trat io n p ro c e e d i n g s an d p rev en t s re-l i t i g at i o n o f m at t ers t h at were o r

co u ld h av e b een l i ti g at ed in a p rev i o u s l y-ad ju d i cat ed act io n

. ”) (ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed ).

12i d en t i t y o f th e cau s e o f act i o n

– i s al s o s at i s fi ed

. Th e arb i t rat i o n cl au s e i n th e p art i es ’

co n tract ex p res s l y co v ers “ [a] n y d i s p u t e, co n t ro v ers y [,] o r cl ai m ari s i n g o u t o f o r in

co n nect io n wi t h

, or rel at i ng t o t h e [A&M Op erat in g ] A g reem en t .” Th e d efen d an t s

m o ved t o co m

p el arb i t rat i o n of al l cl ai m s rai s ed in t h e i ni t i al co m p l ai n t

, an d aft er t h e

p l a i n t i ff o b

ject ed

, t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e m o t i o n

. Th e p l ai nt i ff t hen fi l ed an

arb i t rat i on d em an d wi t h AAA nam i n g A&M an d J DS&J as res p o nd en t s an d s eek i n g

“ i m m ed iat e an d i n s t an t di s so l u t i o n o f” A &M

. S h e l at er am en d ed t h e d em an d,

a l l e g i n g t h at J DS&J “ breach ed n u m ero u s t erm s o f t h e Op erat i n g Ag reem en t

,

fi du ci ary d ut i es o wed t o [h er] ,” i n cl u d i n g “ l o o t i n g o f co m pan y as s et s ” an d “ fi n an ci al

m an i p ul at i on ,” an d t h at J DS&J an d t h e M o t ley s b reach ed t h ei r fi d u ci ary d u t i es t o h er.

In t h e f i n al award

, t h e arb i t rat o r ru l ed t h at t he p l ai n t i ff “ can n o t s u cceed o n t h e

[d ] i s s o lu t i o n [c] l ai m ,” reject i n g h er b reach o f fi d u ci ary d ut y cl ai m s ag ai n s t J DS&J

. 2 4

Th e arb i t rat o r al s o fo u n d i n fav o r o f J D S & J o n i t s co u n tercl ai m al l eg i n g t h at t h e

p l ai n t i ff b reach ed t he op erat i n g ag reem en t an d award e d i t $ 9 5 ,0 9 3 .5 2 i n d am ag es

.

2 4 T h e arb i trat o r d i d n o t ru l e o n t h e i s s u e o f wh et h er th e M o t l e ys o wed t h e

p l ai n t i ff a fi du ci ary d u t y b ecau s e t h ey were n ot p art i es t o t h e arb it rat i o n ag reem en t

,

an d t h erefo re, i t was b ey o n d t h e s co p e o f t h e p ro ceed i n g

.

13“ Al l cl ai m s fo r rel i ef t h at co n cern ‘ t h e s ame s ub j ect ma t ter ’ m

u st be r a i s ed

.

An y cl ai m s fo r rel i ef co ncern i n g t h e s am e s u b j e c t m at t er t h at are n o t rai s ed are

t h e r e a f t e r b arred u n d er OCGA § 9 -1 2 -4 0 .” 2 5 Th e p h ras e “ ari si n g o u t o f” i n t h e

arb i t rat i on cl au s e “ i s b ro ad en ou g h t o en co m pas s ” t h e cl ai m s rai s ed b y t he p l ai n t i ff

i n th e SAC. 2 6 Th e cl ai m s rai s ed i n t he SAC al l al l eg e t h at t h e d efen d an t s i m p ai red t h e

p l ai n t i ff’ s ri g ht s an d i n t eres t s u n d er t h e o p erat i n g ag reem en t an d ei t h er were o r co u ld

h av e b een rai s ed i n t h e arb i t rat i o n

. 2 7

2 5 (Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ; em

p h as i s i n o ri gi n al .) B e n n e t t

, 2 4 4 Ga. Ap p

. at 7 8 6 (1 ),

q u o t i n g La ws o n v. W

a t ki n s , 2 61 Ga. 1 4 7 , 1 4 9 (2 ) (4 0 1 SE2 d 7 1 9 ) (1 9 91 ).

2 6 Ben n et t

, 2 4 4 Ga. Ap p . at 7 8 6 (1 ).

2 7 Th e SAC al l eg es t h e fo l l o wi n g cl ai m s : Co un t s I an d IV (b reach o f fi d u ci ary d u t y ), rai s ed i n t h e arb i t rat i on ; Co un t II (RICO), b a s e d o n t h e sam e al l eg at i on s al read y ra i s ed ; Co u n t III (d i s s o l u t i o n ), m ad e i n t h e arb it rat i o n; Co un t s V & VI (co n v ers i o n an d frau d u l en t t ran s fers)

, involving a lle ga tions of m i sa ppr opr i at io n m ad e i n t h e arb i t rat i on ; Co u n t VI (ci v i l co n s pi racy ) al l eg es a co n s p i racy am o n g t h e d efen d an t s , i n cl u d i n g th e n ew o n es t h at t h e pl ai n t i ff a l l eg es are in p ri v i ty wi t h t h e arb i t rat i on d efen d an t s; Co u n t VII (frau d u l en t m i s rep res en t at i o n), b as ed o n co n d u ct

o ccu rri n g b et ween 2 0 0 9 an d 2 0 1 3 ; Co unt V I I I ( f r a udule n t co n ceal m en t ), al l eg i n g t h at

t h e d efen d an ts fai l ed t o p ro v i d e t h e p l ai n t i ff wi t h fi n an ci al i n fo rm at io n , al l eg at i on s

t h at were rai s ed in t h e arb i t rat i on ; Co u n t X (u n ju s t en ri ch m en t ), s eek i n g reco v ery fo r

m i s d eed s al leg ed i n t h e arb i t rat i o n ; Co u n t IX (frau d u len t t ran s fer), rai s ed i n t h e arb i t rat i on ; Co u nt XI (at t o rn ey fees ), d eri vat i v e o f earl i er cl ai m s

. No n e of t h e cl ai m s rai s ed i n t h e SAC i n vo lv e co n d u ct o ccu rri n g aft er t h e arb i t rat i o n award was en t ered

i n Sep tem

b er 2 0 1 8

.

14Fi n al l y , t h e s eco n d p ro n g

– i d en t i t y o f t h e p art i e s o r t h e i r p ri v i es

– i s al s o

s at i s fi ed

. Th e p l ai n t i ff rep eat ed l y al l eg ed i n t h e SAC t hat al l o f th e d efen d an t s i n t h i s

act i on h av e a “ un i t y o f i n t eres t an d / o r o wn ers h ip ” w i t h an d are “ al ter eg o s ” o f

J DS&J

, A&M

, an d each o t h er. “ ‘ [P] ri v ies are al l p ers o n s w h o are rep res en t ed b y t h e

p art i es an d cl ai m un d er t h em , al l wh o are i n p ri v i t y wi t h t he part ies ; t h e t erm p ri v i t y

d en ot i n g m

u t u al o r su cces si v e rel at i o n s h ip t o t h e s am e ri gh t s o f p ro p ert y .’ ” 2 8 An d t h e

fact t h at t h e d efen d an ts o t h er t h an A&M an d J DS&J were no t t ech ni cal l y p art i es t o

t h e arb i t rat i o n d o es no t p recl u d e ap p l i cat i on o f res ju d i cat a. 2 9 Th u s , t h e i d en t i t y o f

p art i es o r t hei r p ri v i es req ui rem en t h as b een m et

.

Res ju di cat a req u i res t h at a p art y as s ert al l cl ai m s t h at ari s e ou t o f

t h e u n d erl y in g fact s i n o n e p ro ceed i n g. [Th e p l ai n ti ff

. . . was ] req u i red

t o s eek reco v ery i n o n e p ro ceed i ng ag ai ns t [t h e d efen d an t s ] fo r al l [h er]

cl ai m s ari s i n g o u t o f t h e [o p erat i n g ag reem en t ]

. [Sh e] m ay n ot h o l d

s o m e cl ai m s i n ab ey an ce w h i l e o t h ers are s u b m i t t ed t o b i n d i n g

arb i t rat io n. 3 0

2 8 Ben n et t

, 2 4 4 Ga. Ap p . at 7 8 6 (1 ), q u o ti n g Mo n r o e v. Ker s ey , 2 07 Ga. Ap p. 1 0 8 , 1 0 9 (5 ) (4 2 7 SE2 d 8 0) (1 99 3 ).

2 9 See Ben n et t

, 2 4 4 Ga. Ap p

. at 7 8 5 (1 ); Da l to n Pa vi n g , 2 8 4 Ga. Ap p

. at 5 0 8.

3 0 Ben n et t

, 2 4 4 Ga. A p p. at 7 8 7 (1 ) W e reject t h e p l ai n ti ff’ s arg u m en t t h at t h e d efen d an t s s om eh o w wai v ed t h ei r ri g h t t o arg ue res ju d i cat a b ecau s e t h ey l i m i t ed t h e

s co p e of th e arb it rat i o n

. Th e defen d an t s i n i t ial l y s o u g h t t o arb i t rat e al l o f t h e cl ai m s ,

an d t he p lai n t i ff o b

ject ed

. Sh e l at er fi l ed an arb i trat i o n d em an d

, an d s h e was t h e p art y

15Th erefo re, t h e cl ai m s rai s ed i n t h e SAC are b arred

.

2

. Recu s a l

. Th e d efen d an t s arg u e t h at t he t ri al co u rt erred b y fai l i n g t o as s i g n

t h e recu s al m o ti o n t o an ot h er ju d g e an d d en y i n g t h e m o t i o n . W e ag ree.

In th ei r recu s al m ot io n , t h e d efen d an ts rei terat e t h at i t t o ok t h e t ri al co u rt m o re

t h an a y ear t o ru l e on t h ei r req u es t fo r co n fi rm at i on of t h e arb it rat i o n award

, d o i n g s o

o n l y aft er t h ey fi l ed a m an dam u s p et i t io n in s u p e ri or co u rt s eek i n g a ru l i n g o n t h e

co n fi rm at i o n

. Th e d efen d an t s fi l ed t hei r n o ti ce of ap p eal i n Al imch a n d a n i I I o n

Decem b er 1 7, 2 01 9

, 11 d ay s aft er t h e en t ry o f t h e o rd er c o n fi rm i ng t h e arb i t rat i o n

award . Aft er a d el ay

o f s ev eral m o n th s , t h e p l ai n t iff fi n al l y p ai d t h e b i l l o f co s t s o n

J u n e 2 6

, 2 0 2 0

, aft er t h e defen d an t s fi l ed a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e ap p eal

. Th e

d efen d an t s at tach ed t o th e recu sal m o ti o n t he affi d av i t s o f t w o o f t hei r at t o rn ey s , wh o

av erred t hat o n Sep t em

b er 24

, 2 0 2 0

, o n e o f t h em cal l ed t he cl erk ’ s o ffi ce t o i n q u i re

ab o ut t he d el ay i n t ran s m i t t i n g t h e reco rd on ap p eal ; t he D e p u t y Cl erk o f Co u rt

ad v is ed t h at “ wh il e t he reco rd h ad b een read y f o r so m e ti m e, h e h ad n o t fo rward ed

i t th e Geo rg i a Co u rt o f Ap p eal s at t h e d i rect io n o f J u dg e Bri an M cDan i el [, t h e t ri al

t h a t d i c t a t e d t h e s co p e o f t h e p ro ceed i ng , el ect i n g t o i n cl u de l es s t han al l o f h er cl ai m s o r defen d an ts

. Th e fact t h at t h e d e fen d an ts h el d h er t o t h at d u ri n g t h e arb i t rat i on d o es n o t co n s t it u t e wai v er.

16ju d g e p res i d i n g o v er t h e cas e] ” an d “ th at h e was i n s t ru ct ed to h o ld t h e r e c o rd by

J u d g e M cDan i el ’ s o ffi ce u nt i l fu rt h er n o t i ce.” Acco rd i n g t o co u n s el

, d efen d an t s were

n ev er ad v i s ed of t h e co u rt ’ s d i rect i v e t o t h e cl erk

, an d th ey h av e b een o rd ered t o p ay

“ h u n d red s o f t h o u s an d s o f d o l l ars ” t o Co h i l as wh i l e awai ti n g a ru l i n g o n t h ei r

m o ti o n s an d t ran s m i ss i o n o f t h e reco rd t o t h i s Co u rt

.

Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed th e recu s al m o t i o n wi t h o u t s en di n g i t t o an o t h er ju d ge,

co n cl u d in g t h at t h e affi d av i t s s u b m i t t ed b y t h e d efen dan t s

are l eg al l y i n s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt a m o t i on t o d is qu al i fy o r recu s e

b ecau s e th e affi d av it s fai l t o s et fo rt h al leg at i o n s o f “ bi as s t em m i n g fro m

ex t ra-ju d i ci al co n du ct o r s t at em en t s .”.

. . Ev en t ak i ng t h e affi dav i t s as

t ru e, t hey fai l t o s h o w a b i as t hat m ay res u l t i n an o p i n i o n o n th e m eri t s

o n s o m e b as i s o th er t h an wh at t h e ju d g e l earn ed fro m h i s p art i ci pat i o n

i n th e cas e.

. . . [Th e d ] efen d an t s’ affi d av i t s ack n o wl ed g e th at th e reas o n

f o r t h e [c] o u rt ’ s d el ay

i n t ran s m i t t i n g t h e ap p eal reco rd t o t he Geo rg i a

Co u rt o f Ap p eal s was th ei r J u n e 4 , 2 0 20 m o t io n t o d is m i ss t h e ap p eal

.

. . . No ne o f t h e affi d av i t s d es cri b e an y s tat em en t b y t h e [c] o u rt o r o t h er

act i o n (ap art fro m t h e d el ay i n reco rd t ran s m i s s io n ) wh i ch t h ey co n t en d

e v i d en ces b i as

. . . . Ev en i f al l t h e fact s al l eg ed i n [t he d] ef e n d a n t s ’

affi d av i t s were t ru e, an d t h e Su p eri o r Co urt i n pu rp o rt ed erro r cau s ed

t h ere t o b e a d el ay i n t h e t ran s m i s s io n o f t h e reco rd o n ap p eal

, s u ch erro r

17d o es n o t s h o w an i n t en s e b i a s t h at p rev en t s [t he d ] efen d an t s fro m

recei v i n g i m

part i al t reat m en t

. 3 1

On ap p eal , t h e d efen dan t s arg u e t h at t he t ri al co u rt ’ s “ s ecret di rect i v e” t o t h e

cl erk req u i r e s h i s d i s q u al i fi cat i o n / recu s al an d t h at t h e co u rt erred b y den y i n g t h e

recu s al m o t i on wi t h o u t s u b m i t t i n g i t t o an o t h er ju d g e fo r co ns i d erat i o n p u rs u an t to

Un i fo rm Su p eri o r Co u rt Ru l e (“ USCR”) 2 5 .3

.

“ It i s v i t al t o t h e fu nct i o n i n g of t h e co u rt s t h at t h e p u b l ic b el iev e i n t he ab s o l u t e

i n t eg ri t y an d i m

p art i al i t y o f i t s j u d g es , an d ju di ci al recu sal s erv es as a li n ch p i n fo r t h e

u n d erl y i n g p ro p o si t i o n th at a co u rt s h o ul d be fai r an d i m p art i a l

. ” 3 2 USCR 2 5 s et s

fo rt h t he fo rm al p ro ced u re g o v ern i n g recu sal o f s u p eri o r co u rt ju dg es :

USCR 2 5.3 d i rect s th at wh en t h e t ri al ju d g e as s i g n e d t o a cas e i s

p res en t ed wi t h a recu s al m o t i o n an d an acco m p an y i ng affi d a v i t

, “ th e ju d g e s h al l t em

p o rari l y ceas e t o act u p o n t he m eri t s o f t h e m at t er” an d

d et erm i ne “ im

m ed i at el y ”: (1 ) wh et her t h e m o t i o n i s t i m el y ; (2 ) wh et h er

t h e affi d av i t i s l eg al l y s u ffi ci en t; an d (3 ) w h et h er t h e affi d av i t s et s fo rt h

fact s t h at

, i f p ro v ed

, wo u l d warran t t h e as s ig n ed ju dg e’ s recu sal fro m th e

3 1 (Ci t at io n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Th e tri al co urt fu rt h er n o t e d t h at t h e

recu s al m o ti o n was “ m o o t ” b ecau s e t h e Cl erk h ad s i n ce t ran s m i tt ed t h e reco rd t o t h i s Co u rt

.

3 2 (Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed .) Ma yo r & Al der men o

f t h e Ci t

y o f S a va n n a h v. Ba t s o n -Co ok Co ., 2 9 1 Ga. 1 1 4 , 1 1 4 (7 28 SE2 d 1 8 9) (2 01 2 ).

18cas e. If al l t h ree cri t eri a are m et

, “ an ot h er j u d ge s h al l b e as s i g n ed t o h ear

t h e m o t i o n to recu s e.” Th e d eci s i o n ab o u t referri n g a recu s al m o t i o n fo r

reas s i g n m en t t o an o t h er ju d g e d o es n o t i n v o l ve an ex erci s e o f d i scret i o n

b y t h e ju d g e wh o s e recu s al i s so u g h t

. Rat h er, wh et h e r t h e t h ree

t h res h o l d cri t eri a h av e b een m et i s a q u es t i on o f l aw, wh i ch an ap p el l at e

co u rt rev i ews d e n o v o

. 3 3

Th e p l ai nt i f

f i s co rrect t hat “ [a] l l eg at i o n s co n s i s t i ng of b are co n cl u si o n s an d

o p i n i o n s t h at t h e as s i g n ed ju dg e i s b i as ed or p reju d i ced fo r o r ag ai n s t a p art y

. . . are

n o t l eg al l y s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p ort a recu s al m ot i o n o r t o j u s t i fy fo rward i n g t h e m o t i o n

fo r d eci s i o n b y an ot h er ju d g e

. ” 3 4 N e v ert h el es s , “ [i ] n al l o th er res p ect s , . . . t h e

as s i g n e d j u d g e m

u s t t ak e t he m o t i o n at face v al u e, t reat in g i t as t ho u g h ‘ al l o f t h e

fact s s et fo rt h in t h e affi dav i t are t ru e.’ ” 3 5

[W h en ] d eci d i n g wh et h er t h i s as s u m ed s t at e o f fact s wo u ld req u i re

recu sal , USCR 2 5 .3 s ay s t h at t h e as s ig ned ju d g e i s t o b e g u id ed b y

. . . Ru l e 2 .1 1 o f t h e rev is ed Co d e of J u d i ci al Co n d uct t h a t t o o k effect o n

J an u ary 1 , 2 0 1 6

.

3 3 (Ci t at i o ns o m it t ed .) Mo n d y v. Ma g n o l i a Ad

va n ced Ma t er i a l

s

, In c. , 3 0 3 Ga.

7 6 4 , 7 6 6 (2 ) (8 1 5 SE2 d 7 0) (2 01 8 ).

3 4 (Pu n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Id . at 7 6 7 (2 ).

3 5 Id . at 76 7 (2 ), q u o t i n g USCR 2 5.3

.

19Ru l e 2

. 1 1 (A) i n t h e rev i s ed Co d e say s g en eral l y t h at “ ju d g es sh al l

d i s q u al i fy th em s el v es i n an y p ro ceed in g i n wh i ch t h ei r i m p art i al i t y

m i g h t reas o n ab ly b e q u e s t i o ned ,” fo l l o w ed b y a n o n -ex cl u s i v e l i s t o f

s p e c i f i c s it u at i o ns in wh i ch recu s al i s req u ired

. . . . Th e s t an d ard i s an

o b je c t i v e o n e. Th e fact s m

u s t be co n s i d ered fro m t he p ers p ect iv e o f a

reas o n ab l e pers o n rat h er t h an fro m t he p ercep t i o n o f i n t eres t ed p art i es

o r t h ei r l awy er-ad v o cat es , o r fro m th e s u b ject i v e pers p ect i ve o f th e ju d g e wh o s e co n t i nu ed pres en ce i n t h e cas e i s at i s s u e. Th e o p erat iv e

q u es t i o n i s wh et h er a fai r-m i n d ed an d i m p art ial p er s o n wo u l d h av e a

reas o n ab l e p er c ep t i o n o f a ju d ge’ s l ack o f i m p art ial i t y b as ed u p o n

o b jec t i v e fact s s et fo rt h i n t he affi d av i t o r reas o n ab l e i n feren ces

t h erefro m

.

If t h e m ot io n an d affi dav i t

, tak en at f a c e v al u e, s at is fy t h e t h ree

t h res h o l d cri t eri a, t h e as s i g n ed ju d g e m u st refer t h e m o t i o n fo r

reas s i g n m en t an d m ay n ot o p p o s e t he m ot i o n

. Th e ju d g e wh o s e recu s al

i s s o u g h t m ay n o t res p o n d t o t h e m o t i o n o r at t em p t t o refu t e th e

al l eg at i o n s, wh i ch s t an d d en i ed au t o m at i cal l y , n o m at ter h o w fal s e o r

ev en d efam at o ry t h e ju d g e m i g h t k n o w o r p ercei v e th e al l eg at i o ns t o

b e. 3 6

Here, as su m i ng t h e t ru t h o f t h e fact s al l eg ed

, th e affi d av i t s co n s ti t ut e ev i d en ce

t h at th e tri a l co urt

, wi t h o u t no t i fy i n g t h e p art i es , co n tact ed t h e cl erk ’ s o ffi ce an d

d i rect ed t h at i t d el ay t ran s m i s s i o n o f t h e reco rd t o t hi s Co u rt in a cas e t h at h ad al read y

3 6 (Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Id . at 7 6 7 -7 68 (2 ).

20s u ffered an u nd u l y len g t h y d el ay , d u ri n g wh ich t h e d efen d an t s were req u i red t o p ay

l arg e s u m s o f m on ey t o a recei v er ap p o i n t e d b y t h e co u rt a f t er t he d efen d an t s

p rev ai l ed at arb i t rat i o n an d were m erel y awai t in g co n fi rm at i o n

. M o reo v er, t h e tri al

co u rt at t em

p t ed t o ex pl ai n i t s a ct io n s i n t h e o rd er den y i n g t he m o t io n , wh i ch i t i s

p ro h ib i t ed fro m d o in g. An d th e t ri al co u rt s l i gh t l y , b u t cru ci al l y , m i s ch aract eri zed t h e

d efen d an t s ’ al l eg at i o n s reg ard i n g t h e cau s e of t h e d el ay

. Th e defen d an t s al l eg ed t h at

t h e t ri al co u rt cl erk rem ark ed t h at t h e d el ay i n fo rward i n g t he reco rd o n ap p eal “ mi g ht

h a ve h a d s o m et hi n g to d o wi t h a

. . . J u n e 4, 2 02 0 M o t io n to Di s m i s s [t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s

ap p eal [,] ” b u t t h e t ri al co u rt affi rm at i v el y st at ed t h at t h e d efen dan t s “ a ckn owl ed g e[ d ]

t h at t h e reas o n fo r t h e [c] o u rt ’ s d el ay i n tran s m i tt i ng t h e ap p eal reco rd

. . . was t h ei r

J u n e 4

, 2 0 2 0 m o t i o n t o d is m i s s t h e ap p eal .” (Em p h as is s u p p l ied .) Un d er t h es e

ci rcu m s t an ces , t he d efen d an t s ’ recu s al m o t i o n s ho u l d h a v e b een referred fo r

reas si g n m en t t o an o t h er ju dg e. 3 7 Bu t “ [w] e s ee n o n eed t o re m a n d [t h i s ] cas e[] fo r

s u ch reas s ig n m en t .” 3 8 By ad v an ci n g a f a c t u a l cl ai m i n o p p o s i t i o n to t h e recu s al

3 7 See Bu t l er v. Bi ven So ft ware, 2 2 2 Ga. A p p

. 8 8

, 9 0 (1 ) (4 7 3 SE2 d 1 6 8 ) (1 9 9 6 ) ( h o l d i n g t hat al l eg at i o n s o f a “ s ecret ” o r “ ex p art e” o rd er b y t h e ju d g e “ r a i s e [ ]

g en ui n e q u es t i o n s o f fact i n v o lv i n g t h e tri al j u d ge’ s o wn act i o n s , an d th i s t ri al ju d g e

co u ld n o t s i t as t ri er o f fact o n al l eg at i o n s co n cern in g h i s o wn act i o n s ”).

3 8 Po s t v. S t a t e , 2 9 8 Ga. 2 4 1

, 2 5 8 (3 ) (b ) (7 7 9 SE2 d 6 2 4 ) (2 0 1 5).

21m o ti o n an d m i s ch aract eri zi n g th e defen dan t s ’ al l eg at i o n reg ard i n g t h e reas on fo r t h e

d el ay , t h e t ri al co u rt ev al u at ed an d accep ted t h e t ru t h o f h i s o wn fact u al al l eg at i o n s ,

m an d at i n g h i s recu s al . As t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f Geo rg i a h as ex p l ai n ed

,

a ju dg e can n o t b eco m e act i v e l y i n v o l ved i n p res en t i n g ev i d en ce o r

arg u m en t ag ai n s t a m ot i o n s eek i n g h i s recu sal wi t h o u t t h at defen s e i t s el f

b eco m i n g a b as is fo r recu s al

, [b ecau s e] a ju d g e wh o pers o n al l y refu t es

a part y ’ s al l eg at io n s o f ju d ici al b i as m ay ap pear t o a reas o n ab l e p ers o n

t o h av e ex h i b i t ed a p ers o n al i nt eres t i n t h e o ut co m e o f t h e l it i gat i on , o r

t o h av e al ig ned h i m sel f w i t h t h e part y res i s t i n g t h e j u d ge’ s

d i s q u al i fi cat i o n , an d t h a t b y at t em p t in g t o refu t e a ch arg e o f b i as , a ju d g e m ay b ec o m e

– o r ap p ear t o hav e b eco m e – an ad v ers ary o f th e

p art y s eek i n g h i s d is q u al i fi cat i o n

. 3 9

Acco rd i ng l y , w e rev ers e t h e o rd er d en y in g t h e d efen d an t s ’ m o t i o n fo r recu s al

an d rem an d t h e cas e t o t h e t ri al co u rt wi t h d i rect i o n t h at t h e cas e b e reas s i g n ed t o a

n ew ju d g e t o co n ti n u e wi th an y ad d i t i on a l n e ces s ary p ro ceed i n g s (e.g

., ju d g m en t

,

d et erm i n at i o n o f fees fo r recei v er/ s p eci al m as t er/ au d i t o r). 4 0

3 9 (Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct uat i o n o m it t ed .) Id

. at 2 5 7 (3 ) (b ), ci t i n g Is aa cs v. S t a t e , 2 5 7 Ga. 1 2 6

, 1 28 (3 5 5 SE2 d 6 4 4 ) (1 9 8 7 ) an d q uo t i n g Ri ch ard E. Fl am m , J u d i ci al

Di s q ual ifi cat io n : Recu s al an d Di s q u al i fi cat i o n o f J u d g es § 1 5.7

, at 43 5 (2 d ed

. 2 0 0 7 ).

4 0 See Bu t l er , 2 2 2 Ga. Ap p

. at 9 0 -9 1 (2 ). W e o b s erv e t hat i n h i s s u a s p o n t e

o rd er fo l lo wi n g o u r o p i n io n i n Al i mch an d an i II
– fi l ed b efo re t h e r e m i t ti t u r was i s su ed

– t h e t ri al co u rt at t em p t ed t o ex p l ai n h i s rat i o n al e an d m ad e ru l in g s i n vi o l at i o n

o f t h i s Co u rt ’ s o p in i o n

. Th at ord er i s t h e s u b ject of a m an dam

us p et i t i o n fi l ed i n t h i s

223

. R ecei ver s h i p

. Bas ed o n o u r ho l d in g i n Di vi s i o n 1

, t h i s cas e i s no w o ver, wi th

t h e ex cep t i o n o f d et erm i n i n g fees fo r Co h i l as an d t h e s peci al m as t er. An d al l o rd ers

i s su ed s u b s eq u en t t o t h e o rd er d en y in g t h e d efen d an t s ’ m o t i o n t o recu s e, i n cl u d i n g

t h e o rd er ap p o i n t i ng a recei v er, are vo i d

. 4 1 Th u s , t h e d efen d an t s ’ arg u m en t s reg ard i n g

recei v ers h i p are m oo t.

4

. Mo ti o n s t o s t a

y l i t i g at i o n a n d co mp el a r b i t r at i o n

. O u r h o ld i ng i n Di v i s i o n

1 t h at t he SAC i s b arred b y res ju d icat a ren ders t h i s en u m erat i o n o f erro r m o o t

.

Ju d g men t r ever

s ed a n d ca s e r e m a n d

ed

. McFa d

den

, P.J., co n cu r

s f u l l y a n d

s p eci a l l y. Ho d g es , J., co n cu r s i n p a r t

a n d d i s s en t s i n p a rt

.

Co u rt by t h e d efen d an t s

. W e n o t e t h a t t h e O ffi ce o f t h e At t o rn ey G en eral

, at J u d g e
M cDan i el ’ s req u es t

, fi led a bri ef o n h i s beh al f i n th e m an d am u s act io n i n t h i s Co u rt

, d es p it e t h e fact th at t h e p l ai nt i ff h ad al read y fi l ed a b ri ef i n op p o s i t i o n t o t h e

m a n d a m u s p et i ti o n

. Cl earl y , at t h i s p o in t

, t h e t ri al co u rt ju d g e h as b eco m e “ an ad v ers ary o f t he part y seek i ng h i s d i s q u al i fi cat i o n

. ” P o st

, 2 9 8 Ga. at 25 7 (3 ) (b )

q u o t i n g Fl a mm , s u pra.

4 1 See Bu tl er , 2 2 2 Ga. Ap p . at 9 0 -9 1 (2 ). Th e defen d an t s’ m an d am us p et i t i o n ari s in g o u t o f t he t ri al co u rt ’ s s u a s p o nt e o rd er i s d i s m i s s ed as m o o t.

23A2 1 A1 57 6

. A & M HOSPITALITIES L LC et al

. v

.

ALIM CHANDANI.

M C F A D D E N , Pres id i n g J u d g e, co n cu rri n g fu l l y an d s p eci al l y

.

I co n cu r fu l l y i n t h e m ajo ri t y o pi n i on

. An d I ag ree th at o u r d eci s i on i n t h i s cas e

m o ot s t h e p et i t i o n fi l ed i n Cas e No

. A 2 0 A1 6 8 8, w h i ch s o u g h t t o i n v o ke o u r o ri g i n al

m an d am u s ju ri s d ict i o n . So I co n cu r i n t he d i s m i s s al o f t h at p et i t io n as m o o t

.Th at d i s p o s i t i on rem o v ed t h e n eces s it y o f res o l v i n g t h e n o vel i s s u es rai s ed by

t h at m an d am

u s pet i t i o n

. No rm al l y t here wo u l d b e n o t h i n g m o re t o s ay ab o u t t h o s e

i s su es

. Bu t t h e u n cert ai n t i es reg ard in g t he s co p e o f o u r o ri gi n al m an d am u s

ju ri s d i ct i o n an d reg ard i n g t he p ro p er w ay t o i n v ok e i t are great en ou g h t h at I t h i n k i t

u s efu l t o o u t l i ne t h o s e i s s u es

. I al s o wri te t o em p h as i ze t h e i m

p o rt an c e o f a u d i t o rs ,

recei v ers , an d s peci al m as t ers t o t h e effi ci en t fu n ct i o n i n g o f o u r ju d i ci ary

.

1

. Ou r o r i g i na l ma n d

a m u s j u r i sd i ct i o n

.

As ex p l ai ned i n t h e m ajo r i t y o p i n i o n , aft er w e en t ered ou r o p i n i o n i n A& M

Ho s pi t a li t i es v. Al i m ch a n d

a n i

, 3 5 9 Ga. Ap p

. 2 7 1 (8 5 6 SE2 d 7 04 ) (2 0 2 1 ), t h e t ri al

co u rt s u a s p o n te i ss u ed an o rd er i n wh i ch h e d i s p u t ed o u r reas o n i n g an d an n o u n ced

t h at h e wo u l d p ro ceed co n t rary t o o ur ho l d i n g

. A&M Ho s p i t al i t i es fi l ed t h e

m an d am u s p et it io n i n res po n s e t o t h at o rd er.

Ou r Co ns t i t u ti on p ro v i d es t hat we h av e o ri g i n al m an d am u s ju ri s di ct i o n i n p art

“ t o p ro t ect o r effect u at e [o u r] ju d g m en t s.” G a. Co n s t

. o f 19 8 3

, Art

. VI, Sec. I, Par. IV.

p ro v id es i n p art

,

Each co u rt m ay e x e r c is e s u ch p o wers as n eces s ary in ai d o f i t s ju ri s di ct i o n o r t o p ro t ect o r effect u at e i t s ju dg m en t s; b u t o n l y th e

s u p eri o r an d ap pel l at e co u rt s an d s t at e-wi d e b u s i n es s co u rt s h al l h av e

2t h e p o wer t o is s u e p ro ces s i n t h e n at u re o f m an d am u s , p ro h i b i t i o n ,

s p eci fi c p erfo rm an ce, q u o warran t o , an d i n ju n ct i o n

.

It i s w el l s et t l ed th at th e sco p e o f t h e ap p el l at e co u rt s ’ m an d am u s j u ri s d i ct i o n

i s l i m i t ed

. Gen eral l y th e way to m an d am u s a s u p eri o r co u rt ju d g e i s t o fi l e a p et i t i o n

t h at wi l l b e d eci ded b y

an ot h er s u p eri o r co u rt ju dg e. Gr a h a m v. Ca ven d er , 2 5 2 Ga.

1 2 3 (3 11 SE2 d 8 3 2 ) (1 98 4 ) (“ Bei n g t h e res p o n den t []

, t h e s u p eri or-co u rt ju d g e[] wi l l

d i s q u al i fy

, an o t h er s u p eri o r-co urt ju d g e wi l l b e ap p o i nt ed t o hear an d d et erm i n e t h e

m at t er, an d t h e fi n al d eci s i o n m ay be ap p eal ed [.] ”). Th ere i s n o cas e law i d en t i fy i n g

an y i s s u es t h at fal l wi t h i n o u r m an d am u s ju ri s di ct i o n

. Here A&M arg u ed t h at t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s d efi an ce o f o u r ju d g m en t req u i red u s t o i s s u e a wri t of m an d am u s t o “ p ro t ect

o r effect u at e [o u r] ju d gm en t [] .”

W e as k ed at o ral arg u m en t wh et h er A&M ’ s fai l u re t o i n v o ke t h e i n t erl o cu t o ry

ap p eal p ro ced u re— at l eas t to req u es t a cert ifi cat e o f i m m ed iat e rev i ew— co ns t i t u t ed

f a i l u r e t o em

p l o y an av ai l ab l e ad eq u at e rem ed y at law. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b )

.

A&M ’ s co u n s el rep l i ed t hat t h e m an d am u s p ro ceed i n g w a s n o t an ap peal

, t h at t h e

ap p eal h ad al read y

b een h eard an d d eci d ed , an d t h at t h e q u es ti o n n ow was wh et h er

o u r ju d g m en t wo u l d b e effect u at ed

. An d i n d eed o ur earl i er ju dg m en t was n o w t h e l aw

o f t h e cas e. OCGA § 9 -1 1 -6 0 (h ).

3A&M ’ s co u n s el o ffered a s i m i l ar res p o n s e wh en we as k ed i f o u r ju ri s d i ct i o n

o v er t h e cas e h ad ex pi red al o n g wi t h t h e s eco n d t erm o f co u rt aft er i t was d o ck et ed

he r e

. T ha t qu es t i o n i m

p l i es an o th er: wh et her t h e m an d am u s pet i t i o n s h ou l d h av e b een

fi led as a n ew p ro ceed i n g

— s om et h in g fo r wh i ch o ur ru l es d o n o t p res en t l y p ro v i de.

W e al s o as ked ab o u t t h e l i n e b et ween erro n eo us ad m i n i s t rat io n o f o n e o f o u r

d eci s i o n s an d d efi an ce b y t h e t ri al co u rt

. A &M ’ s co u ns el res p o n ded t h at t h e fact s in

t h i s cas e are n o t cl o s e t o t he l i ne.

In s h o rt

, t h e s co p e o f t he ap p el lat e co u rt s ’ m an d a m u s ju ri s d ict i o n an d t h e

p ro ced ure fo r i n v o ki ng i t are l es s t h an cl ear. Bu t becau s e t h e m an d a m u s p et i t i o n i s

d i s m i s s ed a s m o o t

, r es o lu t i o n o f t h es e i ss u es i n t h i s cas e wo u ld b e ad v i s o ry , s o we

can n ot res o l v e t h em

t o d ay

.

2

. Au d i t o r

s , r ecei ver

s , a n d s p eci a l ma s t er

s

.

Fi n al l y , I wi s h t o h i g h l ig h t t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o ri g i n al a p p o i n t m en t o f an

au d it o r i n t h i s cas e was affi rm ed b y t h i s Co u rt

, i n wh ich we reco gn i zed th e i n h eren t

v al u e o f “ au d i t o rs an d s p eci al m as t ers [wh o ] p ri m ari l y as si s t t h e t ri al co u rt in

res o l vi n g i s s u es i n th e li t i g at i o n.” See A& M H o s p i t al i t i es v. Al i mch a n d

a n i

, 3 5 1 Ga.

Ap p

. 3 1 0

, 3 1 4 -3 1 6 (1 ) (8 2 8 SE2 d 6 1 5 ) (2 0 1 9 ). Al t h o ug h a s u b s eq u en t ap p o i n t m en t

o rd er w as rev ers ed

, s ee Al i mch a n da n i

, 3 5 9 Ga. A pp

. a t 2 7 3 -2 7 6 (1 ), an d t h e

4m ajo ri ty ’ s d is p os i ti o n o f t h i s ap p eal n eces s ari l y vo i ds t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er

ap p oi n t i n g a recei ver , I d o n o t b el i ev e t h at an y t h i n g we h av e s ai d i n t h es e cas es

s h o u ld b e co ns t ru ed t o d i sco urag e at t o rn ey s fro m s erv i n g as au d i t o rs , recei v ers , o r

s p eci al m as t ers

— cri t i cal ro l es u p o n wh i ch t h e effi ci en t fu n ct i on o f ou r ju d i ci ary

d ep en d s

. See, e.g

. , Co r d

o za v. Pa ci

f i c S ta t es S t eel Co r

p. , 3 2 0 F3 d

. 9 8 9

, 9 9 5 (I) (9 th

Ci r. 2 0 03 ) (“ A sp eci al m as t er i s a ‘ s u rro g at e’ o f t h e co u rt ‘ an d i n t h at s en s e t h e

s erv i ce p erfo rm ed i s an im p ort an t p u b l i c d u ty of h i g h o rd er i n m u ch th e s am e way as

i s s erv in g i n t h e J u d i ci ary

. ”) (ci t at i o n o m i t ted ).

5A2 1 A1 57 6

. A & M HOSPITALITIES L L C et al

. v

.

ALIM CHANDANI.

H O D G E S , J u d g e, co n cu rri n g i n p art an d d is s en t i n g i n p art

.

1

. Res ju d i ca ta

. I co n cu r fu l l y i n Di v is i o n 1 (a) of t h e m ajo ri t y o pi n i o n

. I ag ree

t h at

, b as ed u p o n t he au t h o ri ty ci t ed b y t h e m ajo ri t y , we m ay ad d res s t h e d efen d an t s ’

arg u m en t s co n cern i n g t h e ap p l i cat i o n o f res ju d i cat a. I al s o co n cu r fu ll y i n Di v i s i o n

1 (b ) t o t h e ex t en t th e m ajo ri t y ho l d s t h at res j u d icat a b ars cl ai m s b as ed up o n act i on s

an d co n d u ct t h at co u l d h av e b een ad d res s ed i n t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s o ri g i n al co m p l ai n t

, t h efi rs t am en d ed co m p l ai nt

, o r t h e arb i t rat i o n

. Ho w ev er, I d o n o t ag ree t h at cl ai m s rai s ed

i n t he pl ai n t i ff’ s seco n d am en d ed co m p lai n t t h at aro se aft er t h e fi n al arb i t rat i on award

are b arred b y

res ju di cat a an d wo u l d , i n s t ead , al l o w t h os e cl ai m s t o p ro ceed

.

2

. Recu sa l

. Fu rt h erm o re, I d o n o t b el i ev e t h at t h e tri al co u rt ’ s o rd er d en y i n g t h e

d efen d an t s ’ m ot io n t o recu se “ ad v an c[ed ] a fact ual cl ai m i n o p p o si ti o n t o t h e recu s al

m o ti o n ” or d em o n s t rat ed an “ [at t em pt ] to ex p l ai n i t s act i o n s

. . . .” Th erefo re, I al s o

d i s ag ree wi t h t h e m ajo ri t y ’ s d eci s i o n t o recu s e t h e o ri g i n al t ri al ju d g e wi t h o u t a

rem an d b ecau se I d o n o t t hi n k t h e t ri al ju d g e wen t so far as t o refu te th e al l eg at i on s

m ad e i n d efen d an ts ’ affi d av i t s i n s u pp o rt of t h ei r m ot i o n t o recu s e. Rat her, I wo u ld

rem an d t h e recu sal i s s ue t o t h e t ri al co u rt

, fo r as s ig n m en t t o a an o th er s u p eri o r co u rt

ju d g e, t o rev i ew wh et h er t h e o ri g i n al t ri al ju d g e s h ou l d h av e recu s ed o r was co rrect

i n d en y i n g t h e d efen d an t s’ m o ti o n t o recu s e. 1

Th e ci rcu m s t an ces i n P o s t v. S t a t e , wh i ch ju s t i f i e d t h e rev ers al o f t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s d en i al o f a m o t i on t o recu s e an d wh i ch are rel i ed up o n b y th e m a j o r i t y to

p recl u d e a rem an d

, are far di fferen t fro m t h e p res en t cas e. 2 98 Ga. 2 4 1

, 2 54 (3 ) (a)

1 Of co u rs e, I ex pres s n o o p i n io n as t o wh at th e res u l t o f th e rev i ewi n g ju d g e’ s

an al y s i s s h o ul d b e o n rem an d

.

2(7 7 9 SE2 d 6 2 4 ) (2 0 1 5 ). 2 In Po s t

, t h e reco rd co n tai n ed a t ran s cri p t fro m a heari n g o n

a recu s al m o t i on in wh i ch t he o ri g i n al t ri al ju d g e arg u ed wi t h co u ns el an d d i s p u t ed

cert ai n fact u al al l eg at i o n s i n t h e m o t io n

. Id

. at 2 5 5 -2 5 6 (3 ) (a). Ou r Su p rem e Co u rt

n o t ed t h at “ a ju d g e co n si d eri n g a m o t io n s eek i n g h i s recu s al m u s t ev al u at e th e m o t i o n

an d acco m

p an y i ng affi d av i t s o lel y o n t h ei r face an d as s u m e t hat t h e fact s s et fo rt h in

t h e affi d av i t are tru e, ev en if t h e j u d ge kn o ws t hem to b e fal s e o r i n co m p l et e;

co n si d erat io n o f ad di t i o n al ev i d en ce i s i n ap p ro p ri at e at t h i s p o i n t i n t h e pro ces s .” Id

.

at 25 6 (3 ) (b ). W here th e reco rd cl earl y d e m o ns t rat es t h at t h e t ri al ju d g e v en t u red

b ey o n d th i s fram ewo rk

, as i n Po s t

, we n eed no t rem an d t h e cas e b ecau s e “ t h e ju d g e

t o wh om t h e m o t i o n sh o u ld h av e b een referred w o u ld hav e h ad n o ch o i ce b as ed o n

t h o s e fact s b u t t o gran t t he m o ti o n an d o rd er [t h e o ri g i n al t ri al ju dg e’ s ] recu s al

. . . .”

Id

. at 2 58 (3 ) (b ). I wh o l eh eart e d l y a g ree, b u t th o s e ci rcu m st an ces are s i m p l y n ot

p res en t i n t h i s cas e.

In s t ead

, al l w e h av e i s an o rd er en t ered b y t h e t ri al co urt d e n y i n g t h e

d efen d an t s ’ recu s al m o t i o n b as ed u p o n th ei r al l eg ed fai l u re t o s at i s fy t h e t h r es h o ld

2 Po s t i n v ol v ed th ree d efen d an t s — Po s t, Bro w n, an d Fri p p . Th e fact s i n t h i s

cas e are m o re an al o go u s t o t h o s e rev iewed in Di v i s i o n 2 of Po s t (i n v o l v i n g d efen d an t

Po s t), wh i ch I b el i ev e co n tro ls t h e o u t co m e in t hi s cas e. In co n t r a s t

, t h e m ajo ri t y

res o l ves t h is cas e b as ed u p on Di v i s i o n 3 o f Po s t (i nv o l v i n g d efen d an t s Bro wn an d

Fri p p ), b u t t ho s e fact s are m o re eg reg i o u s an d are d is si m i lar to t h e fact s i n t h i s cas e.

3req u i rem en t s o f s u c h a m o t i o n

. Ho wev er, as t h e m ajo ri t y co rrect l y n o t es , a cl o s e

read i n g o f t h e t ri al co urt ’ s o rd er d o es rev eal an im po rt an t m i s ch aract eri zat i o n : t h e

d efen d an t s ’ a f

f i d a vi ts fi led i n su p po rt o f th e recu s al m o t io n i n d i cat ed t h at t h e t ri al

co u rt cl erk rem ark ed t h at th e d el ay i n fo rward i n g t h e reco rd o n ap p eal “ m i g h t h ave

h ad s o m et h i n g t o do wi t h a

. . . J u n e 4, 2 0 2 0 M o t i o n t o Di s m i s s [t h e p l a i n t i ff’ s

ap p eal ,] ” wh il e t h e t ri al co u r t s t at ed affi rm at i v el y t h at t h e d efen d an t s

“ a ckn o wl ed

g e[ d ] t h at t h e reas o n fo r t h e Co u rt ’ s d el ay i n t ran s m i t t i n g t h e ap p eal

reco rd

. . . was th ei r J u n e 4

, 2 0 2 0 m o ti o n t o d is m i s s t h e ap p eal .” (Em p h as i s s u p p l i ed .)

St at ed d i fferen tl y , t h e d efen d an t s ’ affi d av i t s , b as ed up o n a s t a te m en t fro m a t ri al co u rt

cl erk , av er t h at t h ey

were t o l d t h at t h ei r m o t i o n t o d i s m is s ma y h av e cau sed a d el ay

i n s u b m i t t i n g t h e reco rd o n ap p eal

, wh il e t he t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er cl ai m s t h at t h e

d efen d an t s ad m i t t ed t h at a d el ay o ccu rred an d t hat th ei r m ot i o n to d i s m is s was i n d eed

t h e cu l p ri t

.

Th e t ri al co u rt ’ s ch aract eri zat i o n o f t h e affi d av it s t at es t h at th e d efen d an t s h av e

co n ced ed a cau s e, o t h er t h an j u d i ci al b i as , fo r t h e d el ay i n t ran s m i t t i n g t he reco rd fo r

ap p eal

. Th i s ch aract eri zat i o n i s p ro b l em at i c, b ecau s e ack n owl ed gi n g th at o n e t h i n g

m ay h av e cau s ed an o t h er d o es n o t fo recl o s e t h at t h ere m ay h av e b een o t h er cau s es

.

4Fu rt h erm o r e , l eft u n an s wered i s wh et h er t h i s ap p aren t m i s ch aract eri zat io n i t s el f

s u b s t an t i at es a cl ai m

o f b i as ag ai ns t t h e o ri g i nal t ri al ju dg e.

In m y v iew, an d t ak i n g th e d efen d an t s ’ recu s al m o t io n at face v al u e, b o t h t h e

t ri al co u rt ’ s m is ch aract e r i zat io n an d an an al y s i s o f t h e po t en t i al fo r b ias are i s s u es

t h at d em an d rev i ew b y a n o th er s u p eri o r co urt ju dg e. In ot h er w o rd s , a d i fferen t

s u p eri o r co u rt j u d ge s h o u ld d et erm i n e wh y t h e reco rd o n ap p eal w as h el d an d wh et h er

t h e o ri g i n al tri al ju d g e h ad an y t h i n g t o d o w i t h i t

. To t h at en d

, we s ho u l d fo l l o w o u r

u s u al p ract ice an d rem an d t h e cas e t o t he t ri al co u rt fo r fu rt her p ro ceed i n g s , i n cl u d i n g

t h e as s i g n m en t o f a rev i ewi ng s u p eri o r co u rt ju d g e. See Po s t

, 2 98 Ga. at 2 5 3 (2 ) (e);

Un i fo rm Su p eri o r Co u rt Ru l es 2 5 .3 , 2 5 .4 (C).

3

. Recei ver

sh i p

. In v i ew o f m

y p ro p o s ed res o l ut i o n o f t h e recu s al i s s u e, I m u s t

al s o d i s s en t t o Di vi si o n 3 b ecau s e, i n t h e i nt eres t o f ju d i ci al eco n o m y , I wo u l d reach

t h e m eri t s o f t h e d efen d an t s’ arg u m en t s co n cern i n g t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ap p o i n t m en t o f

a recei v er

— an an al y s i s t he m ajo ri t y fo recl o s es i n vi ew o f i t s recu s al of t h e o ri g i n al

t ri al ju d g e an d s u b s eq uen t f i n d i n g t h a t al l o rd ers en t ered by t h e o ri g i n al t ri al ju d g e

aft er t h e d en i al o f t h e m ot io n t o recu s e are vo i d

— as th e recei v er ap p o i n t m en t i s s u e

5co u ld wel l ari s e o n rem an d d ep en d i n g u po n t h e rev i e w i ng s u peri o r co u rt ju d g e’ s

recu s al ru l i n g s

. 3

4

. Mo ti o n s t o S t a

y Li t i g a t i o n a n d Co mp el Ar b i t ra t i o n

. Fi n al ly

, t h e n eed to

res o l ve an y i ss u e co n cern i n g t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er s t ay i n g t h e arb it rat i o n i s t i ed to

t h e res o l ut i o n o f t h e res ju d i cat a q u es t i o n

. Th erefo re, t o th e ex t en t t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s

cl ai m s are b arred

, I ag ree wi t h t h e m ajo ri t y t h at t h e d ef e n d a n t s ’ arg u m en t s are

ren d ered m o ot

. Ho wev er, fo r an y cl ai m s th at are n o t s o p recl u d ed

, t h e m ajo ri t y s h o u ld

ad d res s t h i s q u es t i o n

.

3 As i t i s , t h e ju d g e t o w h o m t h i s cas e i s u l t im at el y as si g n ed sh o u l d co n s i d er wh et h er t h ere i s an o ng o i n g n eed fo r a recei v er.

6