Opinion
A23A1149
03-14-2023
MELANIE LAWSON v. DARIN W. MITCHELL, JR.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
This is the third time this case has come before us. The first time, plaintiff Melanie Lawson appealed the grant of partial summary judgment to defendant Darin W. Mitchell, Jr. We affirmed the trial court's substantive rulings in an unpublished opinion. See Case No. A20A1515 (Nov. 2, 2020). Lawson next appealed an order denying her motion to enforce a settlement agreement. We dismissed that appeal as interlocutory. See Case No. A23A0409 (Oct. 19, 2022). Lawson subsequently agreed to dismiss the complaint. She then filed this direct appeal seeking to challenge numerous orders denying various motions she filed. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
We did, however, reverse the trial court's sealing of the record without first holding a hearing and making requisite findings. See Lawson v. Mitchell, Case No. A20A1515 (Nov. 2, 2020).
As the Supreme Court has made clear, a litigant cannot complain of an order that her own procedure or conduct procured. See McDaniel v. State, 248 Ga. 494, 495 (2) (283 S.E.2d 862) (1981). Thus, "a voluntary dismissal is not a decision or judgment that a plaintiff may appeal." Torres v. Elkin, 317 Ga.App. 135, 139 (1) (730 S.E.2d 518) (2012); accord Waye v. Continental Special Risks, 289 Ga.App. 82, 84 (656 S.E.2d 150) (2007). Moreover, a voluntary dismissal cannot be used as a vehicle for obtaining appellate review of other non-appealable rulings entered by the trial court. See Waye, 289 Ga.App. at 84.
Here, Lawson agreed on the record to dismiss the case. Under these circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Waye, 289 Ga.App. at 84. Lawson's pending motion to unseal the record on appeal is DENIED as MOOT.
According to Lawson, she only agreed to dismissal because Mitchell - who had not been subpoenaed - was not present for a bench trial. Regardless of her reasoning, Lawson expressly agreed to the dismissal of the case.