2023.03.07 - Verified Complaint - 23cv377133

CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT
FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA

2023CV377133
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY MAR 07, 2023 12:57 PM
STATE OF GEORGIA
CARMALITHA GUMBS, in her )

Individual Capacity and as Member )
of the Council of the City of South )
Fulton; COREY A. REEVES, in ) CIVIL ACTION FILE
his Individual Capacity and as )
Member of the Council of the City ) NO. _______________
of South Fulton; JACEEY )
SEBASTIAN, in his Individual ) JURY DEMAND
Capacity and as Member of the )
Council of the City of South )
Fulton; NATASHA WILLIAMS, )
in her Individual Capacity and as )
Member of the Council of the City )
of South Fulton; and HELEN Z. )
WILLIS, in her Individual )
Capacity and as Member of the )
Council of the City of South )
Fulton, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
KHALID KAMAU, in his )
Individual Capacity and his )
Official Capacity as the Mayor of )
the City of South Fulton, )
)
Defendant. )
)
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Carmalitha Gumbs, Corey A. Reeves, Jaceey Sebastian, Natasha
Williams, and Helen Z. Willis, individually as residents of the City of South Fulton
(sometimes referred to as the “City”) and in their respective official capacities as
elected Members of the Council of the City of South Fulton (“Plaintiffs” or
“Council Members”),1 bring this Verified Complaint against Khalid Kamau,
individually, and in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of South Fulton
(“Defendant” or “Mayor”) (Plaintiffs and Defendant are collectively referred to
herein as the “Parties”) to remove him as Mayor for violations of the City Charter
as follows:
INTRODUCTION
The Mayor owes fiduciary duties to the City of South Fulton, which are
established by common law and the City Charter. Those duties include respecting
the will of the majority of the City Council, and the decision of the City Council to
enter executive session pursuant to the Georgia Open Meetings Act. See O.C.G.A.
§ 50-14-3(b). They further include respecting the confidentiality of executive
session so that the City Council may conduct business for City residents as
permitted by law. Unfortunately, the Mayor’s conduct has breached those duties,
at least as it applies to his refusal to recognize the will of the City Council and the
confidentiality of some City business. This has grounded certain initiatives to a
halt and prevented the City Council from effectively governing the City and
providing the type of leadership that City residents expect and deserve.
1
The Plaintiffs represent a majority but not all members of the City Council.
-2-
The Mayor has repeatedly betrayed the confidence of the City and the City
Council by intentionally and knowingly disclosing confidential information of the
City for his and others’ personal benefit since his election to office. Most recently,
it has come Plaintiffs’ attention that the Mayor has been recording the confidential
executive sessions of the City Council—against the expressed wishes of City
Council members. When confronted by the Plaintiffs and asked to cease his
recording, the Mayor refused, stating that he would record all future executive
sessions and further threatened to use the recordings to sue the City Council and/or
its members.2
The Mayor’s unauthorized recordings and threats of disclosure constitute
clear violations of the City Charter and the Georgia Open Meetings Act.
Moreover, and more importantly, the Mayor’s acts threaten and undermine the City
Council’s ability to effectively address the City’s affairs. Indeed, there are
significant matters—including the evaluation of potential real estate transactions,
2
To be clear, the City Council has always limited the use of executive sessions to
address matters authorized by the Georgia Open Meetings Act and in accordance
with the procedures outlined therein. As such, there is no basis for the Mayor’s
threats that the recordings could be used in a lawsuit against the City Council.
Nevertheless, the Mayor recently filed, and has since voluntarily dismissed,
another frivolous lawsuit against the City Council regarding his improper and
illegal attempts to terminate the City Attorney without proof of good cause and
without following the City Charter. Thus, the Mayor’s threats of further disclosing
confidential information for some ill-conceived lawsuit or any other improper
reason must be taken seriously. See kamau v. Foster-Rowell, et al., Fulton County
Superior Court, Civil Action File No. 2022CV367679.
-3-
discussing potential disciplinary actions related to City personnel, and receiving
privileged communications from counsel regarding litigation—that the City
Council presently cannot address due to the Mayor’s standing threat to record and
disclose the City Council’s executive sessions. See O.C.G.A. §§ 50-14-2; 50-14-
3(b)(1)(B), (D), and (E); and 50-14-3(b)(2).
The Mayor’s conduct has culminated in placing the City Council in the
present, unenviable position. On the one hand, they can sue the Mayor in order to
protect the City, its employees, its residents, and, indeed, the City Council itself
from possible legal action for dereliction of duty. On the only other hand, the City
Council can stand idly by and be complicit in the paralysis of the City’s
government caused by the Mayor’s conduct. Those members of the City Council
that have stepped forward as Plaintiffs owe it to their constituents and the City’s
employees to choose the former rather than the latter. Judicial action is now the
only means the City Council has left to address the Mayor’s past violations of state
law and the City Charter, as well as his ongoing threats to continue to do so. The
Mayor’s intentional choices have paralyzed the City’s operations, and they require
that he be removed from office.
The Plaintiffs neither seek this judicial relief lightly nor in the first instance.
All reasonable measures of persuasion and compromise have not led to a change in
the Mayor’s behavior. As a result, the Plaintiffs (and indeed the City government)
-4-
are being held hostage by the Mayor; forced to choose between either betraying the
City’s confidence and allowing its confidential information to be disclosed
(thereby causing untold damage to the City and its interests), or simply not
addressing these important matters at all and crippling the ability of the City to do
business.
The City Charter provides a remedy, and this Court provides the forum to
seek the enforcement of the City Charter and address the ongoing irreparable harm
caused by the Mayor. Plaintiffs recognize that the remedy sought is a significant
one. Given the circumstances, however, it is an appropriate one and the only one
left for Plaintiffs, who each have their own duties as residents and as
councilmembers to seek. The Mayor is required to lead the very City government
that he now hamstrings. Thus, the only way to protect the City is to remove the
Mayor from office. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek an injunction to prevent
the Mayor from continuing to violate the City Charter and the Open Meetings Act.
Accordingly, and for the reasons more fully stated herein, Plaintiffs
respectfully request that Defendant be removed from the office of Mayor of the
City of South Fulton pursuant to Section 2.16 of the City Charter. In the
alternative, and at the very least, Plaintiffs seek an injunction to prevent the
Mayor’s threatened and actual violations of his fiduciary duties.
-5-
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1.
Plaintiffs are Members of the City Council of the City of South Fulton, a
political subdivision of the State of Georgia. Plaintiffs all reside in Fulton County,
specifically in the City of South Fulton. They bring this action in their individual
and official capacities.
2.
Defendant is the Mayor of the City of South Fulton and resides in Fulton
County, specifically the City of South Fulton. This action is brought against the
Mayor in his individual and official capacities.
3.
Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court. See City Charter Section
2.16(b)(2); O.C.G.A. § 50-14-5.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I. History of The Parties’ Relationship and Disagreements Leading to

this Action.
4.
On or about November 30, 2021, Defendant was elected Mayor of the City
of South Fulton. Defendant was sworn in as Mayor on January 4, 2022.
-6-
5.
Even before taking his oath as Mayor, Defendant began to cause discord
with the City and Plaintiffs. On or about January 3, 2022, Defendant falsely
accused city officials of conspiring to prevent Defendant from speaking at the
swearing-in ceremony. See Exhibit A.
6.
Immediately after being sworn in as Mayor on January 4, 2022, and while
Plaintiffs Gumbs, Sebastian, and Williams were being sworn into office, Defendant
took to the steps of City Hall and expressed his intent to unilaterally remove the
City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney. See Exhibit B.
7.
Defendant did so in complete disregard for the City Charter, as he had no
authority to unilaterally remove those city officials from their positions.
8.
During the summer of 2022, at the request of the City Council, the City
conducted a confidential internal investigation into allegations of inappropriate
conduct by a City employee(s). See O.C.G.A. §§ 50-14-3(a)(1) (recognizing the
confidentiality of investigations for purposes of the Open Meetings Act); 50-18-
72(a)(8) (recognizing the confidentiality of investigations into government
personnel for purposes of the Open Records Act).
-7-
9.
Despite the confidentiality of the investigation, on July 18, 2022, Defendant
held a press conference and disclosed confidential records and information
regarding the still-pending internal investigation. Defendant also gave a television
interview to a reporter with WSBTV about the confidential information. See
Exhibit C (video available at: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/south-fulton-
county/culture-corruption-local-mayor-calls-investigation-into-city-
officials/6RYLXNNEOJETJPDQ3QZZCRXJSU/ (last accessed February 28,
2022).
10.
Also on July 18, 2022, Defendant sent an email to City officials and to
Plaintiffs with a letter attached purporting to fire the City Attorney and requesting
that the City Manager escort the City Attorney out of the building. See Exhibit D.
Again, Defendant had no legal authority to fire the City Attorney without the
involvement of Plaintiffs.
11.
On July 22, 2022, the City Council held a Special Called Meeting in order to
enter into executive session and discuss litigation and personnel matters pursuant
to the Open Meetings Act. See O.C.G.A. §§ 50-14-2(1) (recognizing that the Open
-8-
Meetings Act does not trump the attorney-client privilege); 50-14-13(b)(2)
(authorizing executive session for discussions about personnel matters).
12.
At the Special Called Meeting and based on the statutory process and
exceptions to the Open Meetings Act, the Plaintiffs properly moved into executive
session, discussed the litigation and personnel matters, and then returned to open
session to publicly vote on the matters. The Plaintiffs then voted to uphold the
City Charter and reject Defendant’s unlawful attempt to unilaterally fire the City
Attorney.
13.
Defendant attended and participated in the same Special Called Meeting.
Rather than respect the decision of the City Council, Defendant retaliated and
continued his campaign of disruption to score political points with his supporters.
When Plaintiffs adjourned into executive session, Defendant falsely warned the
crowd that anyone engaging in business dealings with the City were in danger of
having their contracts for business voided because of some unnamed actions of the
City Council. See video available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzJjbz1ly30&t=731s (last accessed February
28, 2023).
-9-
14.
On that same day, Defendant had the City Attorney and Plaintiffs served
with a lawsuit seeking a Temporary Restraining Order and injunctive relief against
Councilwoman Catherine Foster-Rowell, Plaintiffs Gumbs, Reeves, Sebastian,
Williams, and Willis, and City Attorney Vincent D. Hyman, seeking to overturn
the City Council’s rejection of Defendant’s unilateral attempt to fire the City
Attorney and attacking a recent City Charter amendment.
15.
On August 17, 2022, Judge Dunaway of the Fulton County Superior Court
dismissed Defendant’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order. See Exhibit E.
16.
On December 20, 2022, the same court held a hearing on Defendant’s
requested injunctive relief. After the hearing, Defendant dismissed his lawsuit
against the subject Plaintiffs and the City Attorney. See Exhibit F.
II. The Mayor’s Initial Decision To Unlawfully Record Executive

Session Meetings and Disclose Confidential Information.
17.
On October 25, 2022, the City Council held a regularly scheduled City
Council Meeting.
-10-
18.
During the open session of that meeting, Defendant chastised the City
Council for discussing matters in executive session, claiming, as a matter of policy
preference and not law, that it was wrong to discuss anything in executive session
that the City Council would not also discuss in public. See video available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk9TjfKXFYA (for context beginning at
3:16:58, specific comment beginning at 3:28:38; last accessed February 28, 2023).
Notably, the Defendant did not claim that the City Council entered executive
session in a manner that did not comply with the Open Meetings Act. See
O.C.G.A. § 15-4-4.
19.
On November 15, 2022, the City Council conducted a regularly scheduled
monthly city council meeting.
20.
As a part of that meeting, the City Council again properly moved into
executive session, this time to discuss the City entering into negotiations to
contract for the lease of certain real property. See Exhibits G, H, and I. See also
O.C.G.A. § 15-4-3(b)(1) (authorizing executive session to discuss real estate
transactions).
-11-
21.
During that executive session, which had been properly moved for and
approved by the City Council, Defendant attempted to secretly record the
discussions of the City Council.
22.
Specifically, as the participants were entering into the session, Defendant
ordered a subordinate city employee to provide him with her City-issued cell
phone. Defendant then used the employee’s phone to record the executive session.
See id.
23.
The topic of renting space for the Municipal Court of the City of South
Fulton (“Municipal Court”) was discussed during the executive session, including
confidential details regarding the location of possible space, floor plans, and rental
rates for the space. At this point, it was not public knowledge that they were
searching for space for the Municipal Court.
24.
During the executive session, Plaintiff Willis discovered that Defendant was
recording the executive session, including the City Council’s confidential
discussion regarding the possible lease of space for the Municipal Court. See id.
-12-
25.
As the executive session was concluding, Plaintiff Willis confronted
Defendant with this information and Defendant admitted to recording the executive
session discussion. See id.
26.
The City Council made no decision about the subject property discussed
during the November 15, 2022, executive session and consequently took no vote
on the matter.
27.
The City Council subsequently closed executive session and reconvened the
meeting without any public announcement of action at that time. The information
discussed during executive session was, accordingly, to remain confidential. See
O.C.G.A. § 15-14-1(b)(2) (voiding action taken only in executive session).
28.
After the November 15, 2022, City Council meeting and executive session,
Defendant once again utilized, for his own interests, the Office of Mayor to
disclose confidential governmental information to the detriment of the City.
29.
For example, on December 11, 2022, Defendant took to YouTube Live to
disclose confidential City business on the internet. See video available at
-13-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3JAaGi0VDI&t=19s (beginning at 57:40;
last accessed February 28, 2023). During his live video segment titled “Sundays
@ 6 with Mayor khalid,” Defendant discussed items he had placed on the public
agenda for the City Council meeting scheduled for December 13, 2022.
30.
Defendant explained that, in an attempt to prevent the City Council from
having lawful confidential discussions about the same real property previously
properly discussed in executive session, Defendant placed the discussion of the
lease on the public open agenda. Id.
31.
During his live video broadcast, Defendant publicly disclosed matters
discussed in executive session on November 15, 2022, including that the lease at
issue was for the Municipal Court of the City of South Fulton (“Municipal Court”).
Id.
32.
In the same live video broadcast, Defendant announced his intention to make
public the City Council’s confidential discussions of the lease that he had recorded
with the City employee’s phone. Id.
-14-
33.
Defendant went on to publicly disclose confidential details about the
discussions in executive session on November 15, 2022 (and which were
scheduled to be discussed in executive session at the December 13, 2022, City
Council meeting). Id. Providing a commercial advantage to any other potential
lessee, Defendant also disclosed the actual location and suggested rental price of
the property about which the City was engaged in actual negotiations. Id.
34.
Committing to his course of action, Defendant also stated that he would be
disclosing further information about the negotiations for lease in his upcoming
newsletter.
35.
As promised, on December 13, 2022, hours before the regularly scheduled
City Council Meeting, Defendant distributed (via an email blast) a newsletter
detailing items that would be discussed at the City Council meeting that evening.
See Exhibit J.
36.
The newsletter contained confidential information, discussed in executive
session, related to negotiations to contract for the lease of property for the
Municipal Court. See id. Specifically, the newsletter identified the location of the
-15-
property at issue, a photograph of the property, and potential costs of leasing the
property.
37.
Defendant further admitted in the newsletter that he added information about
the lease negotiations to the public agenda and included it in the open session
agenda over the objection of City staff. See id.
38.
At the December 13, 2022, City Council meeting, Plaintiffs properly
removed the discussion of the potential lease from the open session agenda. Video
available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKn8h4WbZ00&t=1s (beginning
at 1:59:47; last accessed February 28, 2023).
39.
Despite the real need to quickly address the housing of the City’s Municipal
Court, Defendant’s conduct ultimately prevented the City Council from discussing
the possible lease at the December 13, 2022, City Council meeting.
40.
Consequently, the City Council held a specially called meeting on December
19, 2022, in order to properly discuss the negotiations to contract for the lease of
property in executive session. See Exhibits G, H, and I.
-16-
41.
During the course of attempting to enter into executive session, Defendant
was asked if he was recording the session and he confirmed that he was.
Defendant also refused to stop recording when asked to do so. See id.
42.
Thus, the City Council ended the meeting without further discussion. Once
again, Defendant’s conduct prevented the City Council from being able to
effectively address the physical space needs of the City’s Municipal Court. See id.
43.
As recently as the City Council meeting on January 24, 2023, Defendant’s
insistence on recording executive session and disclosures of confidential City
business resulted in the City Council again being unable to proceed with important
City business. See id.
44.
As of the date of this filing, the City Council has not been able to engage in
any discussions that necessitate the confidentiality of executive session. This is
due to Defendant’s refusal to follow the laws and rules that govern the City, and
his actions have effectively shut down certain necessary business that is owed the
citizens of his City. See id.
-17-
III. City Charter Rules and Georgia Statutes Governing Defendant’s
Misconduct.
45.
The Georgia Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) and the City Charter each
address information made confidential by executive session and the disclosure of
it.
46.
Section 2.15(a)(3) of the City Charter expressly obligates elected officials to
maintain the confidentiality of information like that discussed by the City Council
in executive session:
(a) No elected official, appointed officer, or employee of the

city or any agency or political entity to which this Charter
applies shall knowingly:
***
(3) Disclose confidential information concerning the

property, government, or affairs of the governmental
body by which engaged without proper legal
authorization or use such information to advance the
financial or other private interest of himself or herself or
others….
47.
The City’s Charter also imposes consequences for violations of its terms.
Section 2.16(a) provides numerous causes for which a City officer shall be
-18-
removed from office, including disclosing confidential information and other acts
of the Defendant:
(a) The mayor, a councilmember, or other appointed officers

provided for in this chapter shall be removed from office for
any one or more of the following causes:
***
(1) Failure to uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations

of the United States, the State of Georgia, this charter,
and the code of ordinances of the city….
***
(8) Engaging in other conduct which is unbecoming to a

member or which constitutes a breach of public trust ….
***
(12) Knowingly violating Section 2.15 of this charter….
48.
While the OMA generally calls for meetings of governmental agencies to be
open to the public, there are a number of exceptions and exemptions from the
requirement of open meetings.
49.
One such exception is when a governmental agency goes into executive
session. Executive session is defined as a “portion of a meeting lawfully closed to
the public.” O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 (a) (2).
-19-
50.
Relevant to Defendant’s actions as described in this Verified Complaint,
executive session is permitted for meetings when an agency like the City Council
plans to discuss or vote to: 1) authorize negotiations to purchase, dispose of, or
lease property; 2) enter into a contract to purchase, dispose of, or lease property
subject to approval in a subsequent public vote; and/or 3) enter into an option to
purchase, dispose of, or lease real estate subject to approval in subsequent public
vote. O.C.G.A. § 50-14-3 (b) (1).
51.
Another statutory reason to enter and discuss matters in executive session is
“to consult with legal counsel pertaining to pending or potential litigation,
settlement, claims, administrative proceedings, or other judicial actions brought or
to be brought or to be brought by or against the agency or any officer or employee
or in which the agency or any officer or employee may be directly involved.”
O.C.G.A. § 50-14-3.
52.
Importantly, executive session is not authorized unless, as has been the case
in every instance at issue here, a majority of the City Council publicly votes to
discuss matters in executive session. O.C.G.A. § 50-14-4(a).
-20-
COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH FULTON CHARTER
SECTIONS 2.15(A)(3) AND 2.16(A)(12)
53.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth
in this Count.
54.
As stated above, Defendant knew that information discussed in executive
session was confidential and was to remain confidential.
55.
Nevertheless, Defendant knowingly and willfully disclosed the confidential
information concerning the property, government, and affairs of the City without
legal authorization.
56.
Specifically, Defendant ordered a city employee to provide him with her city
issued cell phone and used that phone to record an executive session involving
confidential discussions about negotiations to contract for the lease of real
property, disclosed confidential information about the same discussions and
negotiations on a public YouTube live video, and disclosed confidential
information about the same discussions and negotiations in a publicly disseminated
newsletter.
-21-
57.
Defendant’s acts violate the City’s Charter, specifically including but not
limited to Section 2.15(a)(3), which states as follows:
(a) No elected official, appointed officer, or employee of the

city or any agency or political entity to which this Charter
applies shall knowingly:
***
(3) Disclose confidential information concerning the

property, government, or affairs of the governmental
body by which engaged without proper legal
authorization or use such information to advance the
financial or other private interest of himself or herself or
others….
58.
Public officials who violate the City Charter, specifically including Section
2.15, “shall” be removed from office pursuant to City Charter Section 2.16(a)(12),
which states in relevant part as follows:

provided for in this chapter shall be removed from office
for any one or more of the following causes:
***
(12) Knowingly violating Section 2.15 of this charter….
59.
Accordingly, Defendant “shall” be removed from the office of Mayor of the
City of South Fulton pursuant to City Charter Sections 2.15(a)(3) and 2.16(a)(12).
-22-
COUNT II – VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH FULTON CHARTER
BY FAILING TO UPHOLD LAWS AND ORDINANCES
60.
in this Count.
61.
Defendant failed to uphold the laws and regulations of the State of Georgia
by violating O.C.G.A. §§ 50-14-1, 50-14-3(b)(1)(B), and 50-14-4. As described
above, these statutes together hold that executive session shall be closed to the
public and is properly held to discuss negotiations for contracting to lease real
property.
62.
Defendant violated these statutes by recording the discussion of negotiations
for the lease of real property in executive session and publicly disclosing those
discussions that were legally closed to the public.
63.
The above actions of Defendant constitute a violation of the City’s Charter,
specifically Section 2.16(a)(1), which states as follows:

***
-23-
(1) Failure to uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations
of the United States, the State of Georgia, this charter, and
the code of ordinances of the city….
64.
City of South Fulton pursuant to City Charter Section 2.16(a)(1).
COUNT III – VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH FULTON

CHARTER FOR ENGAGING IN CONDUCT UNBECOMING TO A
MEMBER AND WHICH CONSTITUTES A BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST
65.
in this Count.
66.
Defendant’s behavior as alleged above is unbecoming of any public official,
including knowingly violating the law and the City Charter by disclosing
confidential information and by effectively halting certain city business for months
through egregious violations of the Georgia Open Meetings Act and the City
Charter.
-24-
67.
The above actions of Defendant constitute a violation of the City’s Charter,
specifically Section 2.16(a)(8), which states as follows:

***
(8) Engaging in other conduct which is unbecoming to a

member or which constitutes a breach of public trust ….
68.
City of South Fulton pursuant to City Charter Section 2.16(a)(8).
COUNT IV – VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA OPEN MEETINGS ACT

(DAMAGES)
69.
in this Count.
70.
-25-
property.
71.
Defendant violated these statutes by recording the discussion of negotiations
for the lease of real property in executive session and publicly disclosing those
discussions that were legally closed to the public.
72.
At all relevant times hereto, Defendant acted knowingly and willfully in
violating the Open Meetings Act. Alternatively, and at the very least, Defendant
acted negligently such as to impose civil penalties under the Open Meetings Act.
73.
Accordingly, this Court should impose a civil penalties in the form of
damages for each of Defendant’s violations of the Open Meetings Act pursuant to
O.C.G.A. § 50-14-6.
COUNT V – VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA OPEN MEETINGS ACT

(INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)
74.
in this Count.
-26-
75.
property.
76.
Defendant has violated these statutes and has stated his intent to continue
violating these statutes, by recording the discussion of negotiations for the lease of
real property in executive session and publicly disclosing those discussions that
were legally closed to the public. Such actions pose a threat of irreparable harm to
Plaintiffs and the public as it has, and will continue to, halt the necessary work of
the City and the City Council.
77.
The Open Meetings Act specifically authorizes this Court to enforce
compliance with its provisions by way of injunctive and/or equitable relief.
O.C.G.A. § 50-14-5(a).
-27-
78.
Accordingly, this Court should enjoin Defendant from recording any and all
confidential executive sessions during meetings of the City of South Fulton City
Council and/or otherwise disclosing or publishing the contents thereof.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand the following relief and judgment against
Defendant as follows:
(a) That Defendant be removed from office as set forth in Counts I, II,
and III;
(b) In addition, or in the alternative, that this Court impose civil penalties
against Defendant in an amount to be determined at trial as set forth in
Count IV;
(c) In addition, or in the alternative, that this Court enjoin Defendant from
recording and/or disclosing the contents of any executive session of
the City Council of the City of South Fulton as set forth in Count V;
and
(d) Any other such relief as this Court deems proper.
This 3rd day of March, 2023.
/s/ Josh Belinfante

Josh Belinfante
Georgia Bar No. 047399
jbelinfante@robbinsfirm.com
-28-
Chuck Boring
cboring@robbinsfirm.com
Brian E. Lake
blake@robbinsfirm.com
Robbins Alloy Belinfante Littlefield LLC
500 14th Street, NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30318
Telephone: (678) 701-9381
Facsimile: (404) 856-3255
Counsel for Plaintiffs
-29-
EXHIBIT A
2/1/23, 11:12 AM City of South Fulton Swears in New Leaders - The Atlanta Voice
MORE HEADLINES
City of South Fulton Swears in New Leaders

by Bria Suggs
January 8, 2022
Pictured: City of South Fulton mayor khalid kamau being sworn into office. (Photo Credit: Bria Suggs/The Atlanta Voice)
During Inauguration activities for the incoming council members, newly elected South
Fulton Mayor khalid kamau was on the steps of City Hall calling for the resignation of the
City Manager, City Clerk and City Attorney.
https://theatlantavoice.com/city-of-south-fulton-swears-in-new-leaders/ 1/5
The City Council called a Special Meeting on January 6 to pass a resolution of disapproval
in light of Mayor kamau’s actions with a vote of 6-0. The resolution notes that kamau
overstepped his authority and violated several steps sections of South Fulton’s city charter.
“The Mayor or a Councilmember may only recommend the removal of the City Manager
from office in accordance with procedure set forth in the Charter, and the recommendation
has to have the affirmative vote of five Councilmembers,” Councilwoman Willis stated.
“The City Manager has a contract and we can not breach that contract.”
Prior to the events stated above, South Fulton’s inauguration ceremony was streamed live
on the city’s YouTube channel amid COVID-19 concerns.
Each official was sworn-in in 30-minute staggered commencements to allow for sanitation
in between.
The first person to be inaugurated into office was new South Fulton Mayor khalid kamau,
who purposefully spells his name in lower-case, making him the city’s second mayor.
According to his website, kamau’s lower-cased name comes from the Yoruba tradition
where the community is emphasized over the individual.
The recently elected mayor formerly worked for Black Lives Matter and even helped
establish Atlanta’s chapter.
At his inauguration, Mayor kamau shared how his family’s history has given him
confidence to lead the City of South Fulton.
“Ladies and gentlemen, my father has worked as an accountant for every mayor in the City
of Atlanta from Maynard Jackson to Kasim Reed,” kamau said. “He taught me everything I
know about these four walls.”
Kamau identifies as a Democratic Socialist that has an array of plans as mayor. South
Fulton has a population that is approximately 92% Black, making it the Blackest large city
in America.
Established in 2017, the 85.64 square mile town has a population of approximately 107,436,
making over 98,000 residents of African American descent.
Kamau is determined to make South Fulton “Black on purpose”- “which means a city that
is not just unapologetic about its demographics, but moving on purpose to be a laboratory
for economic, housing and restorative justice policies aimed at improving the lives of
African Americans.”
As mayor, kamau also plans to increase local land ownership, access to capital for local
businesses and career opportunities and entrepreneurship for local youth.
Councilmembers Carmalitha Gumbs of District 2, Jaceey Sebastian of District 4 and

Natasha Williams of District 6 were sworn into office as well.
Pictured: Carmalitha Gumbs sworn into office as Councilmember of District 2. (Photo Credit: Courtesy of City of South Fulton)
Gumbs, an incumbent in her district, has four main areas of focus, including public safety
and accountability, fiscal responsibility and transparency, strategic economic development
and improving quality life issues.
Newly elected Sebastian’s priorities for his district include public and environmental
safety, fiscal responsibility and infrastructure and smart development.
For Williams and her newly acquired district, her main goals are to improve transportation
and infrastructure, public safety and zoning.
© 2023 Nonprofit The Atlanta Voice.
Proudly powered by Newspack by Automattic
EXHIBIT B
PRESS STATEMENT City of South Fulton Government
Department of Communications
MEDIA CONTACT:
Gary Leftwich, Director of Communications and External Affairs
470-825-1950 (cell) - gary.leftwich@cityofsouthfultonga.gov
5440 Fulton Industrial Boulevard, SW Atlanta, GA 30336
www.cityofsouthfultonga.gov
https://twitter.com/COSFGA
City Limits Attendance at Private Swearing in to Ensure Safety During COVID Spike
(CITY OF SOUTH FULTON, GA – October 29, 2021) City of South Fulton officials are limiting attendance
at a private swearin in ceremony today to protect the wellbeing of those taking the oath of office – as
well as their guests and city staff
Last week’s decision comes as the daily number of COVID-19 Omicron variant cases soars to record
heights. Georgia reported more than 25,000 new cases on Friday, nearly twice the amount recorded on
the worst day before the onset of the Omicron variant. As a cautionary measure, South Fulton officials
have closed all public buildings until Jan. 10.
City staff chose to close today’s event to the public to help minimize the spread of the virus. In addition,
the ceremony will take place in four separate stages to minimize contact.,
The event will be livestreamed on the city’s YouTube channel at youtube.com/cityofsouthfulton. Staff has
asked any media planning to cover the event to do so via the livestream.
One of those scheduled to be sworn in, Mayor-elect khalid kamau, took to his personal newsletter with
the false charge that city officials sought to prevent him from making an inaugural address at the
swearing in ceremony.
In fact, Kamau, who is scheduled to be sworn in at 4 p.m., has been allotted time to make remarks during
the ceremony.
“It truly is disheartening that one of our colleagues would take it upon himself to disrupt what is meant
as a joyful and dignified ceremony during one of the worst health crises in our history,” said District 3
Councilwoman Helen Z. Willis, who is recovering from the virus. “It is unthinkable that he would use this
worrisome time and the valiant efforts of city staff to attack those with whom he has policy differences.”
A larger, more formal public inauguration ceremony scheduled for this weekend is expected to be
postponed later this week until the current wave of cases subsides and daily reported cases return to
levels seen just before the variant.
###
EXHIBIT C
2/28/23, 9:10 AM ‘Culture of corruption’: Local mayor calls for investigation into city officials – WSB-TV Channel 2 - Atlanta
63° WATCH
NEWS WEATHER VIDEO 2 INVESTIGATES SPORTS WSB 75TH COMMUNITY
BLACK HISTORY MONTH HOME EXPERTS STEALS AND DEALS
WSB Now
Local News
Replay
Newscast covering important
local topics and events
Resize:
Live Streams
Drag to Resize Video
SOUTH FULTON
COUNTY
‘Culture
of By Tom Jones,
WSB-TV
corruptio WATCH AGAIN July 18, 2022 at 9:34
n’: Local
pm EDT
A local mayor says his city is infected with corruption, calling for
mayor
GBI to investigate
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/south-fulton-county/culture-corruption-local-mayor-calls-investigation-into-city-officials/6RYLXNNEOJETJPDQ3QZ… 1/14
calls for
investiga
tion into
city
officials
By Tom Jones, WSB-

TV
July 18, 2022 at 9:34 pm
EDT
SOUTH FULTON, Ga. — A local mayor is calling on the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to
look into the city council.
South Fulton Mayor Khalid Kamau told Channel 2′s Tom Jones that there is a culture of
corruption and it’s driving employees away.
Some on the council say he should take a good look in the mirror, especially after
allegations he may have misused city-issued credit cards.
ADVERTISEMENT

accepting bribes
Kamau said that issue is minor compared to other problems in the city.
SPONSORED CONTENT
Georgia: Say Bye to Your Car Insurance

if You Live in These Zip Codes 
By LIFESTYLETRENDS
[DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
“I came into this office thinking our city council needed a full-time psychologist,” Kamau
said.
During a news conference Monday, Kamau read from an exit interview where a
department head was asked what does their new job offer that the city did not.
“The answer was only three words: peace of mind,” Kamau said.
The mayor said workers are being bullied and there is corruption.
TRENDING STORIES:
Tire flies off SUV, hits and kills woman walking down Georgia street, police say
Popular metro Atlanta barbecue restaurant vandalized along with other
businesses
Watch out, drivers! Officers are cracking down on speeders this week
The mayor wants the GBI to look into an incident where he said an officer in the narcotics
unit mishandled confiscated funds and had a relationship with a subordinate.
“After she confessed to all of these things, she was not fired. She was placed on
administrative leave and allowed to resign,” Kamau said.
South Fulton Police Chief Keith Meadows told Jones there is an investigation and he is
confident it will bear all the facts.
The mayor said the city attorney isn’t acting in the best interest of citizens, so he said he
has to go.
[SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
“I am firing our city attorney,” Kamau said.
South Fulton City Councilman Jaceey Sebastian said the mayor doesn’t have the power to
fire the city attorney.
The mayor said the buck stops with him.
“The end of this culture of corruption will also stop with me,” Kamau said.
The mayor said he will ask a superior court judge not to allow the council to rehire the city
attorney until the legal question is answered whether he has to power to fire that person.
Sebastian said the entire council hasn’t seen the full report on the allegations and once it
does, it will decide how to proceed.
So many people contacted Jones saying this back and forth between the council is petty
and it’s not good for the county.
The city of South Fulton City Council released a lengthy statement Monday night to
dispute Kamau’s allegations, saying:
“All assertions made by the mayor as a so-called whistleblower already were under
investigation. All findings will be subject to the open records act when those investigations
are complete. In addition, city code requires elected officials – when not designated as an
official spokesperson but seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights regarding city
related policy or position – to ensure the public knows that such assertions are their own
opinions and are not official policy. This would apply to any conclusions reached
regarding the results or outcome of any investigation.
Police corruption
“There is no evidence of any corruption within the police department. As more officers
voiced concern about a particular supervisor, the city manager asked the Smyrna Police
Department to investigate the claims as an outside, independent entity. The police chief
agreed to this process and council members were aware of the investigation, which
eventually found evidence of inappropriate behavior that violated department policy. The
supervisor in question resigned in lieu of termination and the process of notifying the
Peace Officers Standards and Training Council was followed, contrary to the mayor’s
allegation that it wasn’t.
Bullying
“A complaint by a city employee at the director’s level that a council member and the
police chief tried to intimidate her and influence her actions in the police investigation is
itself under investigation. As such, the city cannot comment on this situation beyond
saying that it will be looked at thoroughly and any appropriate action, if necessary, will be
taken. The mayor’s premature release of documents related to this matter is troublesome
and has the potential to taint or adversely affect the independent investigation and its
outcome.
City overcharging for public records
“State law sets forth a standardize process for requesting and providing public records –
including varying time frames – and standards regarding what fees can be charged.
Governments can recoup resources costs, including employee time, related to the
provision of these records. The size and scope of the requests greatly determine the final
cost. Qualified personnel must read through each record and, where appropriate, redact
private information that is exempt from disclosure according to state law. For larger
requests, this can take a considerable amount of time. Charges must be based on the cost
of the lowest-possible employee grade that can complete the task. In one case, a resident
filed a complaint with the Georgia Attorney General’s Office, alleging the city was charging
too much and taking too long to answer his request. The attorney general sent notice of
the complaint, not to assess guilt, but simply to allow the city to answer. The city attorney
will meet the deadline for that response.
Mayor firing the city attorney
“Although the mayor has alleged that he has good cause to fire the city attorney, the
mayor has absolutely no power to fire a city employee under the city charter, including the
city attorney. The council – with a supermajority vote – can terminate the employment of
the city manager, the city clerk and the city attorney. Only the city manager can terminate
or approve the termination of a member of city staff. The city council maintains its support
and confidence in the City attorney who remains employed and on the job.”
Statement on behalf of South Fulton Police Chief Keith Meadows:
“Chief Keith Meadows is a seasoned professional, respected by his peers and the
community Nationwide. Mr. Kamau is yet again casting spurious allegations that he knows
to be blatantly false. His consistent and constant disdain for truth and honesty will
continue to cost him his credibility, if not also his freedom soon. We look forward to
government officials acting swiftly and just. In the interim, we shall ensure that the good
name of Chief Meadows remains protected and in tact.”
Statement on behalf of South Fulton City Councilwoman Helen Willis:
“Councilwoman Helen Willis is the consummate professional, respected by her peers, and
lauded by her constituency for her immeasurable and unending commitment to the City of
South Fulton. Mr. Kamau’s latest unprovoked attack on her is consistent with his
demeanor of voided leadership. The City of South Fulton deserves so much more than a
person who will create and molest matters in an attempt to create issues where there
simply is none. Yet here we find him again doing what he does best-- attacking a woman
as she grieves the passing of her Mother, knowing that there is absolutely nothing she has
done which is wrong, or in any way improper. It is simply an unprovoked attack. However,
this time, it will not go unanswered. This time, Mr. Kamau will have to account for his
behavior.”
IN OTHER NEWS:
5 shot, including 13-year-old, in 2 Atlanta shootings in the same area
©2022 Cox Media Group
Neighbors say they continue to b

Read Next
ADVERTISEMENT
Forecast from Meteorologist

Brian Monahan
NOW 12 PM 3 PM
63° 72° 77°
Channel 2 Action News

DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Zip Code Email* (required)
ADVERTISEMENT
Most Read
Officers, command staff resign after south

Georgia police…
Man falsely accused of being sexual

predator while visiting…
New clues: New video shows stranger

using Ga. man’s debit…
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/south-fulton-county/culture-corruption-local-mayor-calls-investigation-into-city-officials/6RYLXNNEOJETJPDQ3Q… 10/14
Pennsylvania Chick-fil-A bans children

under 16 from eating in…
Finders keepers? A man walked off with

money someone left at…
ADVERTISEMENT
Bring Movement
And Flexibility To
Any Workspace.
Ergotron – Neo-Flex Dual Monitor Stand f…

60
Shop now
Trending - Most Read Stories
Former NFL star, CBS anchor Irv Cross had brain disease CTE
st
1
Former Atlanta Watershed official gets 4 years in prison for accepting bribes
South
nd
rd
th
Georgia police chief arrested by GBI
2
3
4
Former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms finishes White House position, returning ‘home to Atlanta’
Make a Difference in the Lives of Moms and Babies. Donate Now.

March of Dimes | Sponsored
These Pants Look Like Denim, But Feel Like Sweats

Faherty Brand | Sponsored Shop Now
Amazon Hates When You Do This (But They Can't Stop You)
Online Shopping Tools | Sponsored
Karine Jean-Pierre Reveals Her Wife And You Will Easily Recognize
Her
Temp Swings Got You Confused? These Essentials Can Help

Faherty Brand | Sponsored Shop Now
Nadia Comaneci confirms what we all knew all along

Trendscatchers | Sponsored
Red Flag Symptoms of Psoriatic Arthritis Most People Are Unaware Of

StuffAnswered | Sponsored Learn More
The Volkswagen Bus Is Back With A Vengance

The New VW Bus | Sponsored Learn More
NEWS
Local
Watch Live
Video
Nation/World
Traffic
WEATHER
Current Conditions
Stormtracker 2HD Radar
5 Day Forecast
CONTACT US
What's On WSBTV
About WSBTV
EEO Statement
Advertise with WSBTV
WSBTV Public File
FCC Applications
FOLLOW US
© 2023 Cox Media Group. This station is part of Cox Media Group Television. Learn about
careers at Cox Media Group. By using this website, you accept the terms of our Visitor
Agreement and Privacy Policy, and understand your options regarding Ad Choices.
EXHIBIT D
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADg1MjVlYzE5LWVj...
FW: Firing of City Attorney

Vincent Hyman <vincent.hyman@cityofsouthfultonga.gov>
Fri 12/30/2022 12:38 AM
To: Natasha Williams <natasha.williams@cityofsouthfultonga.gov>
1 attachments (135 KB)

Firing City Attorney.pdf;
Hey Councilwoman Williams:

Here you go.
From: khalid kamau <khalid.kamau@cityofsouthfultonga.gov>

Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 11:52 AM
To: Tammi Saddler Jones <tammi.jones@cityofsouthfultonga.gov>; Catherine Rowell
<Catherine.Rowell@cityofsouthfultonga.gov>; Carmalitha Gumbs
<Carmalitha.Gumbs@cityofsouthfultonga.gov>; Helen Willis <Helen.Willis@cityofsouthfultonga.gov>; Jaceey
Sebas�an <jaceey.sebas�an@cityofsouthfultonga.gov>; Jaceey Sebas�an
<jaceey.sebas�an@cityofsouthfultonga.gov>; Vincent Hyman <vincent.hyman@cityofsouthfultonga.gov>;
Reginald McClendon <reginald.mcclendon@cityofsouthfultonga.gov>; Katherine Vernet
<katherine.vernet@cityofsouthfultonga.gov>; Corey A. Reeves <corey.reeves@cityofsouthfultonga.gov>
Cc: Corey Adams <corey.adams@cityofsouthfultonga.gov>; Gary Le�wich
<gary.le�wich@cityofsouthfultonga.gov>
Subject: Firing of City A�orney
Dear City Manager & Members of Council:
Pursuant to the City Charter of the City of South Fulton, Article IV, Section 4.12, I am
removing the City Attorney, Vincent Hyman, for good cause, effective immediately. The
causes include:
(1) Misleading City Council regarding topics allowable during Executive Session
(2) Prohibiting disclosure of actions by public offers and employees of the City of South
Fulton in violation of the Open Records and Open Meeting laws of the State of Georgia
(3) Advising, drafting and assisting the drafting of amendments to the City Charter that
violate the State Code of Georgia (O.C.G.A.)
Madam City Manager: Please have our security ensure Mr. Hyman collects all, but only,
his personal belongings and escort him from the building immediately.
I look forward to a robust discussion of this matter with our City Council and constituents in
the coming days.
1 of 2 12/31/2022, 12:37 PM
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADg1MjVlYzE5LWVj...
Those in power can kill one, two or a hundred roses. But they cannot stop the coming of
Spring.
Lula da Silva
Mayor khalid
City of South Fulton, GA
470.809.7710
Learn More About South Fulton
Report Issues via See.Click.Fix.
Text FULTON to 33777 to sign up for the Mayor's Newsletter & Mobile Alerts.
2 of 2 12/31/2022, 12:37 PM
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
MAYOR@CITYOFSOUTHFULTONGA.GOV
Dear City Manager & Members of Council:
Pursuant to the City Charter of the City of South Fulton, Article IV, Section 4.12, I am removing
the City Attorney, Vincent Hyman, for good cause, effective immediately. The causes include:
(1) Misleading City Council regarding topics allowable during Executive Session
(2) Prohibiting disclosure of actions by public offers and employees of the City of South Fulton
in violation of the Open Records and Open Meeting laws of the State of Georgia
(3) Advising, drafting and assisting the drafting of amendments to the City Charter that violate
the State Code of Georgia (O.C.G.A.)
Madam City Manager: Please have our security ensure Mr. Hyman collects all, but only, his
personal belongings and escort him from the building immediately.
I look forward to a robust discussion of this matter with our City Council and constituents in the
coming days.
South Fulton Forever,
khalid kamau, Mayor

South Fulton, GA
5440 FULTON INDUSTRIAL BLVD., 30336

EXHIBIT E
Fulton County Superior Court
***EFILED***QW
Date: 8/17/2022 9:00 AM
Cathelene Robinson, Clerk
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
KHALID KAMAU, §
§
Petitioner, §
§ CIVIL ACTION
vs. §
§ FILE NO. 2022CV367679
CATHERINE FOSTER-ROSWELL; §
CARMALITHA GUMBS; HELEN Z. §
WILLIS; JACEEY SEBASTIAN; COREY §
A. REEVES; NATASHA WILLIAMS; AND §
VINCENT D. HYMAN; §
§
Respondents.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND IMMEDIATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
This matter came before the Court for a hearing on August 9, 2022 on the Petitioner’s
Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief (“Amended Motion”).
Respondents responded in opposition. Having considered the parties’ motions, briefs, and joint
stipulation and having heard oral argument on this matter, Petitioner’s motion for a temporary
restraining order is denied for the reasons that follow.
FINDINGS OF FACT
As to the parties’ Stipulation entered in connection with the instant motion and the
authenticity of the exhibits referenced therein, the facts in this case are largely undisputed. It is
upon the interpretation of these documents that the parties disagree. The City of South Fulton,
Georgia (hereinafter, “City”) was founded on May 1, 2017, when its first Charter became effective.
When forming the City, the Georgia General Assembly established a city manager – city council
form of government. This remains the form of government under the current Charter. Although
the mayor votes only on any tied motion, resolution, ordinance or other question before the council,
the mayor has the right to veto any ordinance, resolution, or other action adopted by the city
council. The council may override a veto of the mayor by the affirmative votes of at least five
councilmembers, not including the mayor. If the ordinance, resolution or other action is neither
approved nor vetoed by the mayor, it becomes law within ten business days after the mayor’s
receipt of the legislation.
Since the City’s inception, the Charter has provided that “the mayor shall nominate and the
city council shall confirm by a majority vote a city attorney….” (Charter, Sec. 4.12(a)). The City’s
original Charter provided that “[t]he city attorney shall serve at the pleasure of the city council.”
(2017 Charter, Sec. 4.12). In 2020, the Charter was amended to add the following provision:
In the event that the city council does not confirm the mayor’s nomination, the
mayor shall appoint another individual to be the city attorney and such second
nomination shall also be subject to confirmation by the city council. If a second
nomination and a subsequent third nomination for the city attorney are not
confirmed by the city council, the mayor shall appoint an attorney meeting the
qualifications established by this section who shall serve as the city attorney
without such appointment needing to be confirmed by the city council.
(2020 Charter, Sec. 4.12(a)(2)). The amendment by Home Rule to remove this section is the
subject of the Plaintiff’s motion.
At its meeting on December 14, 2021, the City Council heard the First Reading of
Ordinance 2022-003, by which the City Council amended the Charter to, among other things,
delete the subsection 4.12(a)(2) that had been added in 2020. The Second Reading of the Ordinance
took place at the January 25, 2022, Council Meeting, after which the Charter amendment took
effect. The mayor did not veto the ordinance amending the City’s Charter.
Petitioner was sworn in as the City’s second mayor on January 4, 2022. Under the City’s
Charter, the mayor is authorized to appoint or re-appoint only a new municipal court judge, whose
term is coterminous with the mayor’s term and expires at the end of the incumbent mayor’s
-2-
administration. (See Charter, Sec. 5.11(d)). The Charter does not provide a term for the city
attorney or the city manager or clerk.
On or about July 18, 2022, Petitioner sent a letter to the City Manager and Members of
Council stating that he was discharging the City Attorney effective immediately. In response, the
City Council called for a special called meeting whereby the City Clerk issued a public notice of
a special called meeting to discuss litigation and personnel. At the meeting, a motion was made to
deny the removal of the City Attorney, which motion was approved in open session unanimously
in a 6-0 vote by the City Council.
LEGAL AUTHORITY AND ANALYSIS
When deciding whether to issue an interlocutory injunction, a trial court should consider
whether:
(1) there is a substantial threat that the moving party will suffer irreparable
injury if the injunction is not granted; (2) the threatened injury to the
moving party outweighs the threatened harm that the injunction may do to
the party being enjoined; (3) there is a substantial likelihood that the
moving party will prevail on the merits of her claims at trial; and (4)
granting the interlocutory injunction will not disserve the public interest.
Grossi Consulting, LLC v. Sterling Currency Grp., LLC, 290 Ga. 386, 388 (2012). “The first
factor—substantial threat of irreparable injury if an interlocutory injunction is not entered—is the
most important one, given that the main purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to preserve the
status quo temporarily to allow the parties and the court time to try the case in an orderly
manner.” Bishop v. Patton, 288 Ga. 600, 604-605 (2011).
Applying the above factors to the case at bar, the Court finds that there is insufficient
evidence in the record to support the grant of the requested interlocutory injunction. As an initial
matter, the Court finds that, because Petitioner seeks to enjoin action that already has been taken
-3-
place, there is no conduct to enjoin. “The remedy by injunction is to prevent, prohibit or protect
from future wrongs and does not afford a remedy for what is past.” Moorhead v. Luther, 219 Ga.
242, 244 (1963). Here, the subject Charter amendment went into effect on January 25, 2022. The
City Council’s unanimous vote to retain the City Attorney by Council took place at a special called
meeting on July 22, 2022. Therefore, the acts about which Petitioner complains have been fully
consummated, and so this Court may not impose an injunctive remedy. See e.g. Lue v. Eady, 297
Ga. 321, 333 (2015) (“Injunctive relief…does not provide a remedy for acts already completed”);
Wiggins v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Tift Cnty, 258 Ga. App. 666, 668 (2002) (“[C]ourts cannot restrain
that which has already been done, and where it appears from all the allegations of the petition that
the acts complained of where fully consummated an injunction does not lie”).
In addition, the Court finds that Petitioner has not demonstrated that he will suffer
irreparable harm if this Court does not grant his motion for injunctive relief with regard to the
amendment of the Charter. Petitioner contends that he is harmed by the Charter amendment
because it deprives him of a vested right to remove the city attorney and city manager and appoint
a new city attorney and a new city manager. However, the evidence in the record shows that the
power of the mayor to nominate or remove a city attorney or city manager is unchanged. Section
3.23(b) relating to the mayor’s ability to recommend the removal of the city manager and Section
4.12(b) relation to the mayor’s authority to remove the city attorney is unchanged by the 2022
amendment. As the Georgia Supreme Court has recognized, the city attorney can serve for an
indefinite time where there is nothing in the City Charter restricting the city attorney’s appointment
to office and the attorney’s term is not otherwise prescribed by law. See Kautz v. Powell, 297 Ga.
283, 284 (2015). Therefore, the right to nominate a city attorney remains unchanged and unaffected
-4-
by the subject Charter amendment, and Petitioner has not been harmed with regard to his power to
nominate.
Further, Petitioner has not demonstrated irreparable harm by the City Council’s unanimous
vote to reject Petitioner’s decision to terminate the city attorney. As Petitioner conceded during
oral argument, the Georgia Open Meetings Act itself provides a legal remedy for invalidating any
official action that violated the Act. Under the Open Meetings Act, an action to contest an action
may be commenced within nintey days of the subject meeting. O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(b)(2). For this
reason, the Georgia Supreme Court has held that elected officials and citizens would not suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of an interlocutory injunction nullifying a city council decision on
the ground the decision was rendered in violation of the Open Meetings Act. See Lue v. Eady, 297
Ga. at 333.
Finally, the Court finds that the threatened injury to the Petitioner is not outweighed by the
threatened harm that the injunction may do to the party being enjoined. As discussed above,
Petitioner argues that he is harmed by the Charter amendment because it deprives him of a
purported vested right remove and to appoint a city attorney and city manager. However, the Court
finds that any harm the Petitioner may suffer in delaying his ability to remove and reappoint until
a final hearing is outweighed by the loss of employment Respondents would suffer if Petitioner’s
request to discharge the city attorney and enjoin the City Council’s action in reinstating were
granted. Finally, Petitioner has not shown how a grant of the injunction allowing him to replace
the city attorney and/or the city manager would serve the public interest. In sum, Petitioner has not
met his burden for the injunctive relief he seeks.
-5-
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Amended Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 16th day of August, 2022.
_______________________________
Honorable Eric K. Dunaway
Judge, Fulton County Superior Court
Atlanta Judicial Circuit
Filed and served electronically via Odyssey eFileGA
-6-
EXHIBIT F
Fulton County Superior Court
***EFILED***JH
Date: 12/20/2022 2:23 PM
Cathelene Robinson, Clerk
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
KHALID KAMAU, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION
) FILE NO. 2022CV367679
v. )
)
CATHERINE FOSTER-ROWELL, )
CARMALITHA GUMBS, )
HELEN Z. WILLIS, JACEEY SEBASTIAN, )
COREY A. REEVES, NATASHA WILLIAMS, )
and VINCENT D. HYMAN, )
)
Defendants. )
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Khalid Kamau, by and through his undersigned counsel, in the
above styled caption and hereby respectfully DISMISSES THIS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Respectfully submitted this 20th day of December 2022.
/s/ DAVID BETTS

David Betts
Ga. Bar No. 055850
BETTS & ASSOCIATES
44 Broad Street NW Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30303
P: 404-254-0442 F: 404-577-0080
davidbetts@bettslaw.net
/s/ MARIO B. WILLIAMS

Mario B. Williams
Ga. Bar No. 235254
HDR, LLC
Atlanta, GA 30303
P: 404-254-0442 F: 404-577-0080
mwilliams@hdrattorneys.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have electronically filed a copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE with the Clerk of Court using the Odyssey eFileGA system
which will automatically send email notification of such filing to all counsel of record.
Respectfully submitted on this 20th day of December 2022.
/s/ DAVID BETTS

David Betts
Ga. Bar No. 055850
BETTS & ASSOCIATES

Atlanta, GA 30303
P: 404-254-0442
F: 404-577-0080
davidbetts@bettslaw.net
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT J

2023.03.07 - Verified Complaint - 23cv377133

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2023.03.07 - Verified Complaint - 23cv377133

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023.03.07 - Verified Complaint - 23cv377133

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT

FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA

CARMALITHA GUMBS, in her )

Plaintiffs Carmalitha Gumbs, Corey A. Reeves, Jaceey Sebastian, Natasha

elected Members of the Council of the City of South Fulton (“Plaintiffs” or

“Council Members”),1 bring this Verified Complaint against Khalid Kamau,

(“Defendant” or “Mayor”) (Plaintiffs and Defendant are collectively referred to

§ 50-14-3(b). They further include respecting the confidentiality of executive

confidentiality of some City business. This has grounded certain initiatives to a

Council by intentionally and knowingly disclosing confidential information of the

executive sessions of the City Council—against the expressed wishes of City

The Mayor’s unauthorized recordings and threats of disclosure constitute

significant matters—including the evaluation of potential real estate transactions,

privileged communications from counsel regarding litigation—that the City

3(b)(1)(B), (D), and (E); and 50-14-3(b)(2).

that he be removed from office.

City’s confidence and allowing its confidential information to be disclosed

Mayor’s threatened and actual violations of his fiduciary duties.

and official capacities.

Mayor in his individual and official capacities.

2.16(b)(2); O.C.G.A. § 50-14-5.

I. History of The Parties’ Relationship and Disagreements Leading to

of South Fulton. Defendant was sworn in as Mayor on January 4, 2022.

accused city officials of conspiring to prevent Defendant from speaking at the

swearing-in ceremony. See Exhibit A.

Immediately after being sworn in as Mayor on January 4, 2022, and while

City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney. See Exhibit B.

Defendant did so in complete disregard for the City Charter, as he had no

authority to unilaterally remove those city officials from their positions.

conducted a confidential internal investigation into allegations of inappropriate

conduct by a City employee(s). See O.C.G.A. §§ 50-14-3(a)(1) (recognizing the

confidentiality of investigations for purposes of the Open Meetings Act); 50-18-

72(a)(8) (recognizing the confidentiality of investigations into government

personnel for purposes of the Open Records Act).

Despite the confidentiality of the investigation, on July 18, 2022, Defendant

held a press conference and disclosed confidential records and information

regarding the still-pending internal investigation. Defendant also gave a television

interview to a reporter with WSBTV about the confidential information. See

Exhibit C (video available at: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/south-fulton-

officials/6RYLXNNEOJETJPDQ3QZZCRXJSU/ (last accessed February 28,

(authorizing executive session for discussions about personnel matters).

Defendant attended and participated in the same Special Called Meeting.

City Council. See video available at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzJjbz1ly30&t=731s (last accessed February

Councilwoman Catherine Foster-Rowell, Plaintiffs Gumbs, Reeves, Sebastian,

Attorney and attacking a recent City Charter amendment.

dismissed Defendant’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order. See Exhibit E.

On December 20, 2022, the same court held a hearing on Defendant’s

II. The Mayor’s Initial Decision To Unlawfully Record Executive

Council for discussing matters in executive session, claiming, as a matter of policy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk9TjfKXFYA (for context beginning at

On November 15, 2022, the City Council conducted a regularly scheduled

monthly city council meeting.

O.C.G.A. § 15-4-3(b)(1) (authorizing executive session to discuss real estate

approved by the City Council, Defendant attempted to secretly record the

discussions of the City Council.

Specifically, as the participants were entering into the session, Defendant