Read news articles
and releases

Kathi Mills' Atlanta Humane Case Thrown Out

2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 1461,*

ATLANTA HUMANE SOCIETY et al. v. MILLS, and vice versa.

A03A2480, A03A2481.

COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, FOURTH DIVISION

2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 1461

November 21, 2003, Decided

NOTICE: [*1] THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BY THE COURT.

DISPOSITION: Judgment reversed in Case No. A03A2481; Appeal dismissed in Case No. A03A2480.

JUDGES: SMITH, Chief Judge. Ruffin, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.

OPINIONBY: SMITH

OPINION: SMITH, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal and cross-appeal from an order in a defamation action brought by The Atlanta Humane Society (AHS) and its director, Bill Garrett. AHS and Garrett sued Kathi Mills, alleging that she posted defamatory messages on an internet message board. The messages were posted in response to a series of WSB-TV investigative programs criticizing the AHS. In Case No. A03A2480, AHS appeals the trial court's determination that it is a governmental entity which cannot bring an action for defamation, and Garrett appeals the trial court's determination that he is a limited-purpose public figure with respect to this controversy. In Case No. A03A2481, Mills cross-appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to dismiss the complaint as an improperly verified SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1.

This appeal is controlled by our recent decision in Harkins [*2] v. Atlanta Humane Society, __ Ga. App. __, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 1423 (Case No. A03A1422, decided November 14, 2003), another defamation action brought by AHS and Garrett against an individual for statements made in connection with the WSB-TV series. In Harkins, we concluded that the controversy at issue was "an issue of public concern" as defined by O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1 and that "Harkins has a substantive right to exercise her constitutional right of free speech regarding a matter of public concern. The trial court therefore should have dismissed appellees' defamation lawsuit that was initiated in response to Harkins's protected statements." Id., slip opinion at 11. Mills also has this substantive right in connection with her comments on the same matter of public concern. We therefore reverse the trial court's judgment in A03A2481, and direct the trial court, upon receipt of the remittitur, to dismiss the complaint.

Because Mills's cross-appeal is dispositive of this case, AHS and Garrett's appeal in A03A2480 is dismissed as moot.

Judgment reversed in Case No. A03A2481. Appeal dismissed as moot in Case No. A03A2480. Ruffin, [*3] P. J., and Miller, J., concur.