Trinity Inspections, LLC v. Hancock Roofing & Construction, LLC D/B/A Hancock Claims Consultants , 337 Ga. App. 399 ( 2016 )

FIRST DIVISION
DOYLE, C. J.,
ANDREWS, P. J., and RAY, J.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
http://www.gaappeals.us/rules
June 10, 2016
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A15A1650. LADDER NOW, LLC et al. v. HANCOCK ROOFING
& CONSTRUCTION, LLC.
A15A1685. TRINITY INSPECTIONS, LLC et al. v. HANCOCK
ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION, LLC.
ANDREWS, Presiding Judge.
Hancock Roofing & Construction, LLC (Hancock) commenced this action in
November 2014 against 54 former employees and independent contractors, alleging
they breached restrictive covenants not to compete when they went to work for two
of Hancock’s competitors, Ladder Now, LLC, and Trinity Inspections, LLC. Hancock
also sued those two competitors and three of their individual owners or managers.
Hancock sought injunctive relief and damages for the breach of the restrictive
covenants.
Most of the defendants lived and worked outside Georgia and moved to dismiss
the action against them based on lack of personal jurisdiction. On January 9, 2015,
the trial court held a hearing on that issue and Hancock’s request for an interlocutory
injunction, and on January 23, 2015, the trial court denied the defendants’ motions
to dismiss and entered an interlocutory injunction for Hancock. Almost all the
provisions of the injunction were limited to one year after each enjoined party’s last
day working for Hancock. Ladder Now, LLC, and Trinity Inspections, LLC, and their
individual owners or managers, were enjoined from inducing any of the other
defendants to breach the restrictive covenants. The defendant/appellants filed
companion direct appeals with this Court, seeking to overturn the interlocutory
injunction and the trial court’s denial of their motions to dismiss.
On December 3, 2015, this Court transferred the appeals to the Supreme Court
on the basis the cases involved the legality and propriety of the equitable relief
granted. But by order dated April 4, 2016, the Supreme Court found that the
interlocutory injunction had expired and the challenge to the injunction was now
moot. Further, as the only remaining issues did not implicate its subject matter
jurisdiction, the Supreme Court returned the appeals to this Court.
2
As the grant of the interlocutory injunction was the sole directly appealable
issue, Hancock moves to dismiss the appeals. OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Davis v. Davis,
242 Ga. 322 (249 SE2d 90) (1978); Clark v. Atlanta Independent School System, 311
Ga. App. 255, 259 (715 SE2d 668) (2011). The appellants, relying upon Cox v. Altus
Healthcare and Hospice, 308 Ga. App. 28 (706 SE2d 660) (2011), assert that
although the challenge to the enforcement of the interlocutory injunction is moot, we
should still address the enforceability of the non-compete and non-solicitation
covenants, both in the interests of judicial economy and the determination of their
pending counterclaims for wrongful restraint. In response, Hancock makes two
points: (1) that same argument was raised before but apparently rejected by the
Supreme Court; and (2) the appellants’ counterclaims are invalid and provide no basis
for avoiding the mootness rule, because under Sneakers of Cobb County v. Cobb
County, 265 Ga. 410 (455 SE2d 834) (1995), a claim for wrongful restraint falls
under the exclusive remedy provisions of the abusive litigation statute, OCGA § 51-
7-80 et seq., and the appellants’ counterclaims did not comply with that statute.
However, the appellants’ counterclaims for wrongful restraint are not before
this Court now, and we will not render an advisory opinion discussing them. The
bottom line is that, as determined by the Supreme Court, the challenge to the trial
3
court’s grant of interlocutory injunction for Hancock is moot and dismissed. An
“appellate court is not required to retain a moot case and decide it because a party
might possibly derive some future benefit from a favorable adjudication on an
abstract question.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Scarbrough Group v. Worley,
290 Ga. 234, 236 (719 SE2d 430) (2011).
The order on the interlocutory injunction was the only directly appealable issue
in these appeals. No longer piggybacked on that directly appealable issue, the denial
of the appellants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction has no
independent basis for direct appeal. For that reason, the appeal from the trial court’s
order denying the motions to dismiss must be dismissed as well. Davis v. Davis,
supra; Clark v. Atlanta Independent School System, supra.
Appeals dismissed. Doyle, C. J., and Ray, J., concur.
4