Opinion
A24D0249
02-29-2024
GIRISH MODI v. INDIA-AMERICAN CULTURAL ASSOCIATION (IACA).
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
In his fifth appearance before this Court in his case against the India-American Cultural Association ("IACA"), Girish Modi, proceeding pro se, filed this application for discretionary appeal seeking to appeal the trial court's May 2022 order staying the proceedings and issuing a bill of peace.
In July 2022, the trial court granted summary judgment to IACA, dismissed Modi's complaint, and awarded attorney fees to IACA. Modi appealed, and this Court affirmed the dismissal of Modi's complaint and the grant of summary judgment to IACA, but remanded the portion of the case involving the attorney fee award for the court to enter a stay until Modi's bankruptcy proceedings concluded. See Modi v. India-American Cultural Assn., 367 Ga.App. 572 (886 S.E.2d 378) (2023). Later in 2023, Modi again appealed the attorney fee award; this Court affirmed the judgment in part, but vacated and remanded the case for the court to undertake the appropriate factfinding. See Modi v. India-American Cultural Assn., __Ga.App.__ (S.E.2d __) (Case No. A23A1569, decided Jan. 10, 2024), petition for cert. filed, Case No. S24C0604 (Jan. 30, 2024).
Modi then filed this application in February 2024, seeking to appeal the trial court's May 2022 order, which entered the bill of peace and granted IACA's motion to stay. We lack jurisdiction for the following two reasons.
First, to be timely, a discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of the entry of the order, decision, or judgment to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d); Hill v. State, 204 Ga.App. 582, 583 (420 S.E.2d 393) (1992). This statutory deadline is jurisdictional. See Boyle v. State, 190 Ga.App. 734, 734 (380 S.E.2d 57) (1989). The order Modi seeks to appeal was filed more than 21 months before he filed this application. The deadline for appealing this order was not delayed by his previous appeals, nor, as he contends, by the filing of a motion for reconsideration in his previous appeal. See generally Wright v. Wright, 367 Ga.App. 15, 17, n.2 (884 S.E.2d 610) (2023).
Second, the law of the case doctrine bars Modi from appellate review of the May 2022 order. "It is well established that any issue that was raised and resolved in an earlier appeal is the law of the case and is binding on this Court[.]" Ross v. State, 310 Ga.App. 326, 327 (713 S.E.2d 438) (2011) (punctuation and footnote omitted). The order Modi seeks to appeal had issued when he appealed the July 2022 dismissal; in fact, he previously argued to this Court that the trial court erred in issuing the bill of peace. "It is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum." Echols v. State, 243 Ga.App. 775, 776 (534 S.E.2d 464) (2000).
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to rule on this application, which is hereby DISMISSED.