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

, REESE and BROWN, JJ.

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

.

June 1, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A0 62 1 . SHAHA v

. GENTRY et al

.

R E E S E
, J u d g e.

F o l l o w i n g a j u ry tri al

, To n y Gen t ry , Mi g u el Lo ve, an d Lak y n d ri a Lo v e

(co l l ect i v el y , “ t h e p l ai n t i ffs ”) s ecu red a ju dg m en t ag ai n s t Ram es h Sh ah a fo r $ 7 8 ,0 0 0.

As Sh ah a h ad p rev i o u s ly reject ed t h ei r o ffers of set t lem en t

, th e p l ai n ti ffs s o u g ht

at t o rn ey fees an d l i t ig at i o n ex p en s es p u rs uan t t o OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 6 8

. Fo l l o wi n g a

h eari n g , t h e co u rt g ran t ed t h ei r m o t i o n fo r at t o rn ey fees an d co s ts t o t al i n g $ 2 1 ,0 1 2.

Th i s ap peal fo ll o wed

. Fo r t h e reas o n s s et fo rt h i n fra, we affi rm t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g.

In 2 01 4

, th e p l ai nt i ffs s u ed Sh a h a f o r i n j u ri es s us t ai n ed i n an au t o m o b i l e

co l l i s i o n

. Th e co u rt o ri g i n al l y p l aced t h e cas e o n i t s t ri al cal en d ar fo r Au g u s t 2 0 1 6,

but gr a nte d Sh ah a a co n t i n uan ce aft er h e u n d erwen t o p en -h eart su rg ery

. Th e p l ai n t i f f s

each s u b m i t t ed an o ffer o f set t lem en t t o Sh ah a p ro p o si ng to d i s m i s s t h e act i o n wi thp reju d i ce i n ex ch an g e fo r p ay m en t o f $1 6 ,6 6 6 .6 7 each

, o r $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 .0 1 i n t o t al

. Sh ah a

reject ed t h e p l ai n ti ffs ’ o ffers

.

In Feb ru ary 2 0 17

, Sh ah a at t en d ed th e fi rs t d ay of t ri al

, b ut as k ed fo r a

co n ti n u an ce as h e s t at ed h e fel t i l l d u ri n g t h e p rel i m i n ary pro ceed i n gs

. In M ay 2 0 1 7,

t h e co u rt u l t i m at el y h e l d a t wo -d ay t ri al

, wh i ch Sh ah a d i d n o t at t en d

. Th e ju ry

ret u rn ed a v erd i ct fo r t h e p l ai nt iffs an d award ed m on et ary d am ag es t o t al in g $ 7 8 ,0 0 0.

Th e t ri al co u rt s u b seq u en t l y en t ered a ju dg m en t i n t h e p l ai n t i ffs ’ fav o r.

Sh ah a ap peal ed

, an d we affi rm ed t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l in g

. Th e p l ai nt i ffs t h en

s o u g ht t o reco v er at t orn ey fees an d l i t i g at i o n ex p en s es p u rs uan t to O CGA § 9 -1 1 -6 8.

Fo l l o wi ng a h eari ng on th ei r m o t i o n , t h e t ri al co u rt ru l ed fo r th e p l ai n t i ffs

, award i n g

t h em at t o rn ey fees an d ex pen s es t o t al in g $ 2 1,0 2 1 . Th i s ap p eal fo l l o wed

.

“ W e rev i ew fo r ab us e o f d i s cret i o n t h e t r i a l co urt ’ s d eci s i o n o n wh et h er a

s et t l em en t o ffer [p u rs u an t t o O CGA § 9 -1 1 -6 8] was m ad e i n g o od o r b ad fai t h .” 1 “ It

i s wel l -s et t l ed t h at an award o f at t o rn ey fees i s t o b e d et erm i n ed up o n ev i d en ce o f t h e

1 Gr ea t W es t Ca s

. Co

. v. Bl o o mf

i el d

, 3 1 3 Ga. Ap p . 1 8 0

, 1 81 (7 2 1 SE2 d 1 7 3 ) (2 0 1 1).

2reas on ab l e v al ue o f t h e p ro fes s i o n a l s e rv i ces wh i ch u n d erl ie t h e cl ai m fo r at t o rn ey

fees

. ” 2 W i t h t h es e g u id in g p ri nci p l es i n m i n d

, we n o w t u rn t o Sh ah a’ s cl ai m s o f erro r.

1 . In rel at ed arg u m en t s , Sh ah a co n t en d s t h at t h e at t o rn ey fees award ed u n d er

OCGA § 9 -1 1 -6 8 were u nreas o n ab l e. He as sert s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g s h o u l d b e

rev ers ed as t h e am o u n t o f at t o rn ey fees s o u g h t b y t h e p l ai n t i ffs was u n j u s t i fi ab l e. W e

d i s ag ree.

Th e p u rp o s e o f OCGA § 9 -1 1 -6 8

, co m m o n ly referred t o as Geo rg i a’ s “ o ffer o f

s et t l em en t ” s t at u t e, i s t o en co u rag e l i t i g an t s i n to rt act i o ns “ t o m ak e an d accep t g o o d

fai t h s et t l em en t p ro p o s al s i n o rd er t o av o i d u n neces s ary li t ig at i o n , ” w h i c h i n t u rn

s u p p ort s t h e St at e’ s p o li cy o f “ en co u rag in g neg o t i at i on s an d s et tl em en t s .” 3 Th e

s t at u te s t at es , i n p art

,

[i ] f a p l a i n t i f

f m ak es an o ffer o f s et t l em en t wh i ch i s reject ed by th e

d efen d an t an d t h e p l ai n t i ff reco v ers a fi n al ju d g m en t i n an am o u n t

g reat er t h an 1 2 5 p ercen t o f s u ch o ffer o f s et t l em en t

, t he p l ai n t i ff s h al l be

en t i t l ed t o reco v er reas o nab l e at t o rn ey ’ s fees an d ex p en s es o f l i t i gat i o n

2 Ga

. D ep t

. o

f Co r r ect i o n s v. Co uch

, 29 5 Ga. 4 6 9

, 4 8 3 (3 ) (a) (7 5 9 SE2 d 8 0 4 ) (2 0 1 4) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

3 Co u ch

, 2 9 5 Ga. at 4 7 1 (1 ) (b ) (ci tat i o n an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ).

3i n cu rred b y t h e p l ai n t i ff o r o n t h e p l ai n t iff’ s b eh al f fro m t h e d at e o f th e

reject i o n o f t h e o ffer o f s et t l em en t t h ro u g h t he en t ry o f ju d g m en t

. 4

In t h e pres en t cas e, t he t h ree p l ai nt i ffs p res en t ed o ffers t o s et t l e fo r $ 5 0 ,0 0 0

($ 1 6

, 66 6 each ), an d were award ed a fi n al ju d g m en t o f $ 7 8

, 00 0

. Becau s e t h e fi n al

ju d g m en t ex ceed ed 1 2 5 p ercen t o f t h e p l a i n t i f fs ’ o ffer, as a t h res h o l d m at t er, t h ey

s at i s fi ed t h e req u i rem en t s et fo rt h i n OCGA § 9 -1 1 -6 8 (b ) (2 ) an d are t h u s en t i t l ed to

at t o rn ey fees an d l i ti g at i o n ex p en s es

. 5

Ad d it i on al l y , t h e pl ai n t i ffs p res en ted affi d av i t s d et ai l i n g th e 7 5 ho u rs s p en t by

t h ei r co u n s el o n t h e cas e b e t w een t he reject i o n o f th ei r o ffers an d t h e en t ry o f

ju d g m en t

, wh i ch res u l t ed i n $ 2 0 ,5 5 0 i n at t o rn ey fees

. As s t at ed in t h e affi d av i t s , 3 8

o f t h es e h o u rs were s pen t p hy s ical l y at t en d i n g t ri al

, an d m o s t o f t h e rem ai ni n g h o u rs

were s p en t i n t ri al p rep arat io n

. Th e p l ai n t i f f s a l so pro v i ded i nfo rm at i o n reg ard i n g

t h ei r at t o rn ey s ’ h o u rl y rat es an d ex p eri en ce. Th erefo re, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t co m m i t

4 OCGA § 9 -1 1 -6 8 (b ) (2 ).

5 See An g li n v. S

mi t h

, 3 5 8 Ga. Ap p . 3 8 , 4 0 (8 5 3 SE2 d 1 4 2 ) (2 0 20 ).

4rev ers i bl e erro r as t h e p l ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m fo r at t o rn ey fees was s u p p o rt ed wi t h ad eq u at e

s p eci fi cat i on , an d s u ch fees were reas o n ab l e. 6

2

. Sh ah a al s o co nt en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ab u s ed i t s di s cret io n i n g ran t i n g t h e

p l ai n t i ffs ’ m ot i o n fo r at t orn ey fees b ecau se t h e p l ai n t iffs ’ set t lem en t o ffers were n ot

m ad e i n g o o d fai t h . W e d i s ag ree.

As t h i s Co u rt h as s t at ed :

On ap peal

, a tri al co u rt ’ s ru l i n g o n wh et her an o ffer o f s et t l em en t u nd er

OCGA § 9 -1 1

- 6 8 wa s m ad e i n g o o d fai t h i s rev i ewed fo r ab u s e o f

d i s cret i o n

. T h e o fferee (ag g ri ev ed p a r t y) has t h e b u rd en t o s h o w th e

ab s en ce o f g oo d fai t h

. Rel ev an t ev i d en ce o n t h e ab s en ce o f go o d fai t h

m ay i n cl ud e, i n t er al i a, (1 ) wh et h er t he o f f er b o re n o reas o n ab l e

rel at io ns h ip t o t h e am o u n t o f d am ag es , (2 ) an u n real i s t i c as ses s m en t o f

l i ab i l i t y , o r (3 ) t h at t h e o ffero r l ack ed i n t en t t o s et t l e t h e cl ai m

. 7

Here, t h e p l ai n t i ffs ’ offers o f s et t l em en t to t al ed $ 50 ,0 0 0

, w h i ch b o re a

reas on ab l e rel at i o n sh i p t o t he p lai n t i ffs ’ ap p ro x i m at e m ed ical co st s an d t h e i n s u ran ce

6 Cf. Ca n t o n Pl a z a v. Reg i o n s Ba n k

, 3 2 5 Ga. Ap p

. 3 6 1

, 3 6 3-3 6 4 (3 ) (7 4 9 SE2 d
8 2 5 ) (2 0 13 ) (rem an d i n g fo r an ev i d en t i ary h eari n g becau s e t h ere w as no ev i d en ce fro m wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt co u l d d et erm i n e wh at p ort i on fo t h e fees were at t ri b u t ab l e
t o d e f e n di n g ag ai n st t he p l ai n t i ffs ’ cl ai m s as o p p o sed t o p u rs u i n g t h e d efen d an t ’ s

co u nt ercl ai m s ).

7 Hi l l ma n v. Bo r d

, 3 4 7 Ga. Ap p

. 65 1

, 6 5 5 (2 ) (8 20 SE2 d 4 82 ) (2 0 1 8 ) (p h y s i cal

p reced en t o n l y ) (p u n ct u at i on an d fo o t n o t es o m i t t ed ).

5p o l i cy li m i t

. M o reo v er, t h e fact t h e p lai n t iffs m ad e t h e o ffer t o s et t l e aft er Sh ah a

u n d e r wen t o p en -h eart s u rg ery i s n o t s u ffi ci en t t o d em o n st rat e t h at t h ey l ack ed t h e

i n t en t t o s et t l e. Th erefo re, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n ot ab us e i t s d i s cret i o n i n co n cl u d i n g

Sh ah a fai l ed t o carry h i s b u rd en t o p ro v e t h e p l ai n t i f f s ’ o ffer o f s et t l em en t was n ot

m ad e i n g o o d fai t h

. 8

Fo r t h e reas o n s s t at ed ab o v e, we affi rm t h e t ri al co urt ’ s ru l in g

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Do yl e, P. J., a n d

Br o wn
, J., co n cu r

.

8 S e e A n g l i n , 3 58 Ga. Ap p

. at 40 -4 1 ; s ee al s o Co h en v. Th e Al f r ed & A d e l e Da vi s Aca d

emy , 3 1 0 Ga. Ap p . 7 6 1, 7 6 2 -7 6 3 (1 ) (7 1 4 SE2 d 3 5 0 ) (2 0 11 ).

6