A dispute over the removal of a resident from her home has led to a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that critical procedural protections were ignored during state court eviction proceedings. The suit claims that the process used to seek the resident’s removal was defective under both Georgia law and the United States Constitution, with potentially irreversible consequences for the plaintiff.
The complaint was filed by Betty Aidoo in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on April 14, 2026. The named defendants are Senior Judge Ronnie K. Batchelor, Asset Funding Group, LLC, Vimal Modi (an agent for Asset Funding Group), Joseph P. Farrell (counsel for Asset Funding Group), and O’Kelley & Sorohan, Attorneys at Law, LLC.
According to court documents, Aidoo alleges that Asset Funding Group and its representatives initiated dispossessory proceedings against her in Gwinnett County Superior Court under Case No. 26-A-01755-2. She contends that these proceedings were “fundamentally defective in both jurisdiction and procedure,” specifically arguing that she was improperly classified as a “tenant at sufferance”—a term she says lacks statutory basis under Georgia law. The complaint states: “The dispossessory proceedings in Case No. 26-A-01755-2 were predicated upon the assertion that I was a ‘tenant at sufferance,’ a classification that lacks any statutory basis under Georgia law and was improperly derived from a secondary reference source rather than from the controlling statutes governing landlord-tenant relationships in the State of Georgia.”
Aidoo further reports that on March 17, 2026, she served interrogatories and requests for production of documents upon Asset Funding Group and Vimal Modi as part of discovery in the state case. Judge Tracie H. Cason granted her motion to conduct discovery on March 20, 2026; however, Aidoo asserts that no responses were ever received from the defendants despite legal requirements mandating replies within thirty days.
She claims this lack of response should have resulted in admissions by operation of law pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-36(a)(2) and sanctions under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-37 but states: “The state court took no action whatsoever regarding Defendants’ wholesale disregard of its discovery obligations.” Additionally, an emergency stay order issued by Judge Cason intended to preserve Aidoo’s rights pending further proceedings allegedly went unaddressed by Senior Judge Batchelor when he later presided over related hearings.
In support of their position during state court hearings, defendant attorney Joseph P. Farrell is reported to have relied on Black’s Law Dictionary to define “tenant at sufferance.” Aidoo argues this reliance is legally improper because such definitions are not binding authority: “Black’s Law Dictionary is a secondary reference tool — it is not binding legal authority… The use of a dictionary definition as the jurisdictional basis for dispossessory proceedings is legally improper and constitutes a critical defect in the proceedings.” She maintains that Georgia’s landlord-tenant relationship requires both exclusive possession granted by one party and return of rent or consideration per O.C.G.A § 44-7-1—criteria she says were not met in her situation.
The lawsuit also details events from an April 10, 2026 hearing before Senior Judge Batchelor where Aidoo alleges she was denied an opportunity to request an official recording and present evidence or arguments regarding discovery failures or statutory challenges. Her sworn statement describes how she was not asked if she wanted a recording made of the hearing while opposing counsel declined one; subsequently no record exists for appellate review.
Aidoo contends these cumulative actions deprived her of due process rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment: “As a direct and proximate result… I face imminent displacement from my home… based on state court orders that are the product of jurisdictionally defective and constitutionally infirm proceedings.” She asserts monetary damages cannot compensate for loss of home or personal property.
The legal filing seeks several forms of relief including:
– An immediate temporary restraining order preventing enforcement or execution of any dispossessory order entered against her,
– A preliminary injunction maintaining her possession pending resolution,
– An order compelling defendants to respond to outstanding discovery,
– Declaratory judgment stating her constitutional rights were violated,
– Compensatory damages,
– Punitive damages,
– Costs incurred,
– And any other relief deemed proper by the court.
Betty Aidoo represents herself (pro se) in this matter; contact information provided includes an address at Sterling Oaks Court in Lilburn, Georgia along with telephone number (404) 271-2538 and email bejai87@gmail.com. Attorney Joseph P. Farrell is identified as counsel for Asset Funding Group through O’Kelley & Sorohan, Attorneys at Law LLC; other attorneys are referenced only as recipients for service copies.
No judge beyond those named as parties appears explicitly as presiding over this federal action within available filings. The case identification number is Civil Action No.: 1:26-cv-02032-JPB.
Source: 126cv2032_Betty_Aidoo_v_Senior_Judge_Complaint_Northern_District_Of_Georgia.pdf
