The Georgia Court of Appeals reminded litigants to verify your complaint if you seek an injunction in a trial court. Parnell v. Sherman & Hemstreet, Inc., A22A0069, 2022 WL 2070942 (June 9, 2022).
The failure to file a verified complaint “can be amended and does not subject the injunction to dismissal if it was supported by evidence; [but] [an] unverified petition [requesting injunctive relief] must be supported by other satisfactory proofs, i.e., affidavit, deposition, or oral testimony.” BEA Sys., Inc. v. WebMethods, Inc., 265 Ga. App. 503, 504, 595 S.E.2d 87 (2004); see OCGA § 9-10-110 (“Petitions for a restraining order, injunction, receiver, or other extraordinary equitable relief shall be verified positively by the petitioner or supported by other satisfactory proofs.”); Bracewell v. Cook, 192 Ga. 678, 678 (2), 16 S.E.2d 432 (1941).
A verification of the motion for temporary injunction is normally sufficient, however, in Parnell, the movant stated that he "do[es] hereby swear and attest that the facts set forth in the above Verified Motion for [an] Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order are true and correct to the best of [his] knowledge.” (emphasis in original). Parnell, 2022 WL 2070942 at *5.
Further the Supreme Court of Georgia has held that a verification "that the allegations contained therein are true and correct to the best of his information and belief" is not a positive verification. Carter v. Hayes, 214 Ga. 782, 782 (2), 107 S.E.2d 799 (1959); Wright v. Wheatley, 210 Ga. 35, 36 (2), 77 S.E.2d 435 (1953); Grizzel v. Grizzel, 188 Ga. 418, 422 (2), 3 S.E.2d 649 (1939); Byrd v. Prudential Ins. Co., 182 Ga. 800, 800, 187 S.E. 1 (1936).
The Court of Appeals vacated the court's grant of injunctive relief and remanded the case to decide whether the petition supported the motion by other satisfactory proofs. Parnell, 2022 WL 2070942 at *6.
Likewise, the Court of Appeals found that the Defendant that was pleaded as a "stranger" to the contract for tortious interference purposes was not actually a stranger because as a real estate agency that hired an agent with a prior employment agreement with plaintiff, which contained non-compete and non-solicit provisions, the defendant "had a legitimate financial interest in Parnell potential violating the agreement by inducing [plaintiff's] clients or potential clients to move their business from [plaintiff] to [defendant]." Id. at *8. (emphasis added)