Opinion
A21A1444
06-09-2021
JAMES A. RAFAC v. JIANGSU LINHAI POWER MACHINERY GROUP CORPORATION.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
Plaintiff James A. Rafac filed a personal injury suit against multiple defendants, including Jiangsu Linhai Power Machinery Group Corp. Jiangsu filed a motion to dismiss for lack of timely service of process, which the trial court granted. In a prior appeal, this Court vacated the trial court's dismissal order ("the initial dismissal order") and judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss under the proper legal standard. See Case No. A20A0905, decided Nov. 2, 2020. Following remand, the trial court conducted additional proceedings and entered a second dismissal order, from which Rafac now appeals. We lack jurisdiction.
The trial court's second dismissal order only pertained to Jiangsu, and it appears that the claims against the other defendants remain unresolved. "Unless the court in an order dismissing one of multiple defendants makes an express determination of finality as set out in OCGA § 9-11-54 (b)[, ] . . . the case is still pending in the trial court and the procedure for interlocutory appeals [under OCGA § 5-6-34 (b)] must be followed." All Risk Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Rockbridge Sanitation Co., 166 Ga.App. 728, 728 (305 S.E.2d 390) (1983) (punctuation omitted). Accord Spivey v. Rogers, 167 Ga.App. 729, 729 (307 S.E.2d 677) (1983). Where, as here, neither of these code sections has been followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed. See All Risk Ins. Agency, Inc., 166 Ga.App. at 728. Accordingly, this direct appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
The record for the prior appeal reflected that after entering the initial dismissal order, the trial court also entered a final judgment as to Jiangsu pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-54 (b). But the judgment was vacated in the prior appeal. The provisions of OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) were not invoked when the trial court subsequently entered the second dismissal order. As a result, the second dismissal order is not directly appealable. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a); Carlisle v. Travelers Ins. Co., 195 Ga.App. 21, 22 (392 S.E.2d 344) (1990).