Represented metro-Atlanta municipality in a suit by a former employee alleging violations of federal law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act, in her termination. Bloom Sugarman moved for summary judgment on all counts, arguing the motion before a magistrate judge in the Northern District of Atlanta. After argument, the magistrate judge recommended granting our motion on all counts. The District judge adopted the recommendation in full, agreeing that the defendant had not violated any laws in the termination and taxing costs to the plaintiff.
Defended appeal of trial court’s grant of summary judgment and $45,000 of attorneys’ fees to Bloom Sugarman. Trial court property granted summary judgment in favor of Bloom Sugarman’s client on claims related to the rezoning of an adjacent property. Trial court subsequently awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in favor of client. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.
Successfully obtained a reversal of summary judgment in favor of opposing party. The trial court improperly granted summary judgment to opposing party in nuisance and trespass actions after concluding that there was no evidence of causation. On appeal, Bloom Sugarman argued that the trial court misapplied the law and ignored disputed evidence of causation. The Georgia Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the trial court’s ruling. The Georgia Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Obtained an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $45,000 for client forced to defend suit. After prevailing on all counts at summary judgment, Bloom Sugarman moved on the client’s behalf for an award of fees and costs under Georgia’s frivolous litigation statute. Plaintiffs argued that their claims were substantially justified and supported by justiciable issues of facts. In the alternative, Plaintiffs argued that they relied upon a novel position supported by existing law. After briefing and hearings on both the merits of the motion and the reasonableness of fees, Judge Vinson agreed with Bloom Sugarman and awarded our client more than half of the attorneys’ fees incurred in the case.
Successfully obtained summary judgment in client’s favor in a suit by a neighboring landowner seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant. The neighbor—who had not been an original party to the restrictive covenant at issue—sought to enforce an interpretation of the covenant that would have substantially impacted the value of multiple lots in client’s residential development. The Court agreed with Bloom Sugarman’s arguments showing why the neighbor’s interpretation was incorrect as a matter of law under the recorded document, leaving only our client’s claim for attorneys’ fees pending in the case. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order in our client’s favor.
Defeated local utility’s motion for summary judgment in inverse condemnation and trespass case in which Bloom Sugarman’s client is alleging that the utility buried its electrical conduit and facilities on the client’s property outside the scope of the utility’s recorded easement. This matter will now proceed to a jury trial this summer where our client will be allowed to present evidence in its favor.
Successfully obtained emergency TRO for client in order to stop the foreclosure sale of and/or to conduct the non-judicial foreclosure sale of client’s property. The controversy involves the validity of two Security Deeds as a result of a commercial real estate transaction. The TRO will allow for the courts time to issue a declaratory judgment or decree on the issue to eliminate the uncertainly and controversy and appropriately determine the rights and liability of the parties.
Successfully defended a developer in a suit attempting to invalidate a recent rezoning decision and to enjoin developer from progressing further in development plan until developer constructed certain improvements. After identifying significant evidentiary weaknesses in plaintiff’s case, Bloom Sugarman moved for and obtained summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiffs were ineligible as a matter of law to bring the claims at issue, allowing developer to continue project and county to continue issuing permits. Bloom Sugarman successfully defended the case through the appellate process, convincing the Georgia Supreme Court that no discretionary appeal was warranted.