El Chico Restaurants, Inc. v. Transportation Insurance

7 Citing cases

  1. Wright v. Safari Club Int'l Inc. Wright

    322 Ga. App. 486 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 17 times
    Affirming summary judgment in SCI's favor on Wright's FBPA claim

    But, as our appellate courts have held on numerous occasions, when a party seeks to amend his complaint to add a new party,OCGA § 9–11–15(a) must be read in pari materia with OCGA § 9–11–21, which requires a court order to add or drop parties. E.g., Clover Realty Co. v. Todd, 237 Ga. 821, 822, 229 S.E.2d 649 (1976); Odion v. Varon, 312 Ga.App. 242, 244–245(3), 718 S.E.2d 23 (2011); Valdosta Hotel Props. v. White, 278 Ga.App. 206, 209–210(1), 628 S.E.2d 642 (2006); El Chico Restaurants, Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 235 Ga.App. 427, 428(2), 509 S.E.2d 681 (1998); Dollar Concrete Constr. Co. v. Watson, 207 Ga.App. 452, 453, 428 S.E.2d 379 (1993); Aircraft Radio Systems v. Von Schlegell, 168 Ga.App. 109, 111(2), 308 S.E.2d 211 (1983). As we have explained,

  2. Transportation Insurance v. El Chico Restaurants, Inc.

    271 Ga. 774 (Ga. 1999)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that the legislature’s deletion of limiting language when amending a statute must be presumed to be “a matter of considered choice” so that the law cannot be read to maintain the limitation at issue

    DECIDED: DECEMBER 2, 1999 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 235 Ga. App. 427. Dye, Tucker, Everitt, Wheale Long, Thomas W. Tucker, Rogers Hardin, C. B. Hardin, Glover Blount, Percy J. Blount, Arnall, Golden Gregory, Karen B. Bragman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller Ciresi, Thomas J. Gallo, Morris, Manning Martin, Lewis E. Hassett, Hull, Towill, Norman, Barrett Salley, Patrick J. Rice for appellants. Bell James, John C. Bell, Jr., James L. Bentley III, for appellee.

  3. Nusz v. Paulding Cnty.

    361 Ga. App. 131 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that 11 of 15 judges agreed with the majority in Moats I and declining to revisit the holdings in Moats I and Davis

    The trial court did not explicitly dismiss the Sheriff from the case, as he never was properly added as a party. See El Chico Restaurants, Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co. , 235 Ga. App. 427, 428 (2), 509 S.E.2d 681 (1998) (a court order is required to add a party); accord OCGA § 9-11-21. Rather, read as a whole, the trial court's dismissal order (i) implicitly denied Nusz's motion to substitute the Sheriff as a defendant on the ground that she did not provide him with the notice required by OCGA § 36-11-1 and (ii) dismissed her amended complaint on that basis.

  4. Smith v. Morris

    264 Ga. App. 24 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 13 times

    We disagree. See El Chico Restaurants v. Transp. Ins. Co., 235 Ga. App. 427, 430(2) ( 509 S.E.2d 681) (1998) ("a void suit cannot be amended"), aff'd, Transp. Ins. Co. v. El Chico Restaurants, 271 Ga. 774 ( 524 S.E.2d 486) (1999). Under OCGA § 9-11-15(a), "[a] party may amend his pleading as a matter of course and without leave of court at any time before the entry of a pretrial order."

  5. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Baldwin

    244 Ga. App. 664 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 4 times
    Noting the “uninsured motorist insurance carrier could not be forced to become a party to tort action; [the insurer] could opt to participate in the proceedings in its own name, in [the uninsured motorist's name], or in both or could do nothing.”

    Here there was no valid action pending when Baldwin sought to add Wisenbaker as a defendant. See generally El Chico Restaurants v. Transp. Ins. Co., 235 Ga. App. 427, 430 (2) ( 509 S.E.2d 681) (1998); Bil-Jax, Inc. v. Scott, 183 Ga. App. 516 ( 359 S.E.2d 362) (1987); Wagner, supra at 501-502 (2). Furthermore, we note that as an uninsured motorist insurance carrier, Allstate is allowed to assert any defense that would be available to Wisenbaker.

  6. Suwannee Swifty Stores, Inc. V. Nationsbank N.A.

    536 S.E.2d 299 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 1 times

    The committee first argues that the trial court erred by failing to discuss the earlier bankruptcy court order denying summary judgment. In El Chico Restaurants v. Transportation Ins. Co., 235 Ga. App. 427, 428-430 (2) ( 509 S.E.2d 681) (1998), we held that a trial court erred in dismissing a complaint based on the plaintiffs' failure to obtain leave to add parties. A federal district court had previously granted permission to add parties before the case was transferred to state court, and the state court neither reconsidered nor acknowledged the district court's order.

  7. State v. Hess Corp.

    159 N.H. 256 (N.H. 2009)   Cited 18 times
    Holding "the effect to be given pleadings filed in federal court before a case is remanded [to state court] is for state courts to determine"

    Only a handful of cases address this issue, all of which support giving effect to the first amended complaint in this case. See El Chico Restaurants v. Transp. Ins. Co., 235 Ga. App. 427, 509 S.E.2d 681 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998), aff'd on other grounds, 271 Ga. 774, 524 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. 1999); Craig, 80 S.W.3d at 458, 460; Hansen, 399 A.2d at 323. In El Chico Restaurants, the plaintiff originally filed a class action suit against several defendants in state court.