William Brent Galloway v. Total Play, LLC

── William Brent Galloway v. Total Play, LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General FIRST DIVISION BARNES, P. J., MARKLE and HODGES, JJ. 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. https://www.gaappeals.gov/rules May 22, 2026 In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A26A0633. GALLOWAY v. TOTAL PLAY, LLC. BARNES, Presiding Judge. This case centers on a dispute over the enforceability under the Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act (“GRCA”), OCGA § 13-8-50 et seq., of the restrictive covenants in a release and an employment agreement. Total Play, LLC sued its former employee, William Brent Galloway, for among other things, breach of the non- compete and non-solicitation covenants contained in a release and in his employment agreement and for attorney fees and expenses under OCGA § 13-6-11. During the ensuing jury trial, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of Galloway on Total Play’s claims for breach of the non-solicitation covenants and on its claim for compensatory damages, and the court directed a verdict in favor of Total Play on its claim for breach of the non-compete covenant in the release. The jury subsequently awarded nominal damages to Total Play on its claims for breach of the non-compete covenants and OCGA § 13-6-11 attorney fees, and the trial court entered judgment on the verdict. Galloway now appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying his initial and renewed motions for summary judgment on the enforceability of the non-compete and non-solicitation covenants; erred in failing to grant a directed verdict in his favor on Total Play’s claims for breach of the non-compete covenants and in granting a directed verdict to Total Play on one of those claims; and erred in failing to direct a verdict in his favor on Total Play’s attorney fees claim and in entering judgment on the fees award. For the reasons discussed below, we decline to address the trial court’s summary judgment rulings because they are moot, and we affirm the trial court’s rulings on the motions for directed verdict. However, because Total Play proved only the lump sum amount of attorney fees that it incurred in litigating the entire case, we reverse the judgment entered on the attorney fees award and remand for an evidentiary hearing for Total Play to establish either the portion of the awarded fees 2 that were attributable solely to its prevailing claims or that the claims were so interwoven that segregation of its fees was not possible. Following a jury verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Yash Solutions v. New York Global Consultants Corp., 352 Ga. App. 127, 132(1) (834 SE2d 126) (2019). So viewed, the evidence presented at trial showed that Total Play is a North Carolina limited liability company that, during the time period in question, engaged in the “redemption route business.” Its business included selling, operating, and distributing coin-operated video gaming machines for use in convenience stores, bars, restaurants, and other locations. All of Total Play’s existing routes and customers were located in North Carolina, but it planned to expand into markets in other states and began taking steps to do so. Michael Macke is the sole owner of Total Play. Macke also owns several affiliated companies involved in the redemption route business in various states, including Liberty Games, LLC, which operated in Virginia during the pertinent time period. Because Total Play and Liberty Games were both owned by Macke and operated the same type of businesses, there was cost-sharing among the companies, and Total Play shared its gaming e