Opinion
A24D0204
01-26-2024
JARVIS GREEN v. FS 360, LLC.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
Jarvis Green, a defendant in the case below, has applied for discretionary review of the default judgment that was entered against him. The trial court's order reveals, however, that the plaintiff's claims against the other defendant remain pending. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to consider this application.
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 fewer 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). For a party to obtain appellate review under such circumstances, there must be either an express determination by the trial court that there is no just reason for delay under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) or compliance with the interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See id. Where neither code section is followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed. Id.
Here, although the trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on claims the plaintiff raised against Green, the plaintiff's claims against defendant Ryjohn Steel, LLC, remain pending. Consequently, Green was required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures - including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court - to seek appellate review of this order. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga.App. 435, 435 (383 S.E.2d 906) (1989). Green's failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures deprives us of jurisdiction over this application, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 S.E.2d 213) (1996); see also generally Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588 (1) (408 S.E.2d 103) (1991) (compliance with the discretionary application statute does not relieve an appellant seeking review of an interlocutory order of the requirement of obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court).