Opinion
A24A0732
10-22-2024
BOYD et al. v. GB RESTORATION SERVICES, LLC.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
Selita and Eloise Boyd, plaintiffs in the underlying action, appeal from what purports to be a final order in this case. But that order resolves only the claims of Selita Boyd. The order identifies only Selita Boyd as the plaintiff, uses only the singular form of the word "plaintiff," and expressly states that Selita Boyd "is the sole party in this case in the Court's record."
The record on appeal, however, shows that Eloise Boyd is also a plaintiff in this action. The complaint lists Eloise Boyd as a plaintiff both in its caption and in its description of the parties to the action, and it states claims on behalf of Eloise Boyd, who both electronically signed the complaint (as a pro se plaintiff) and physically signed a verification of it. We have found nothing in the record indicating that Eloise Boyd's claims have been resolved.
Consequently, Eloise Boyd's claims remain pending below. See OCGA § 9-1154 (b). "Because this case is still pending in the trial court and there are issues remaining to be resolved, the [order on appeal] is not appealable as a final judgment." City of Dublin School Dist. v. MMT Holdings, 351 Ga.App. 112, 115 (830 S.E.2d 487) (2019). See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). And it is not one of the other specific types of trial court rulings for which a direct appeal is permitted under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a).
Instead, the trial court's order is subject to the interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Because Selita Boyd did not comply with those requirements, we lack jurisdiction. Athens Heart Center v. Molina, 370 Ga.App. 190, 194 (895 S.E.2d 518) (2023). We hereby DISMISS the appeal.