Opinion
A25A0267
09-13-2024
LEROY BANKS, III v. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
Leroy Banks, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against six defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and Banks filed a request to amend his complaint to add a new defendant. The trial court entered an order finding that Banks had properly served only one defendant, but that defendant was not a proper party to the case. Accordingly, the court dismissed the named defendants, but it granted Banks's request to add a new defendant and ordered Banks to file an amended complaint. Banks appeals, but we lack jurisdiction.
Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), appeals generally may be taken from "[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below." "In a case involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a decision adjudicating fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of less than all the parties is not a final judgment." Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 192 Ga.App. 628, 629 (385 S.E.2d 731) (1989) (punctuation omitted). "In such circumstances, there must be an express determination under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) or there must be compliance with the interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Where neither of these code sections [is] followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed." Id. (citations and punctuation omitted).
In this case, although the trial court dismissed the six original defendants, the court also allowed Banks to add a new defendant to the case. Thus, the case remains pending below. The trial court's order did not direct the entry of judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-54 (b), and Banks did not follow the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Under these circumstances, we lack jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.