Opinion
A25I0081
11-22-2024
CHRIS ALLEN TUCKER, JR. v. MARK MADDOX et al.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
In this defamation action, defendant Chris Tucker, Jr., filed this timely application for interlocutory review of a trial court order granting the plaintiffs' "Motion for New Trial." In that order, the trial court set aside a prior order granting Tucker's motion to strike the lawsuit pursuant to Georgia's anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation statute, OCGA § 9-11-11.1, and thereby effectively denied Tucker's OCGA § 9-11-11.1 motion to strike. See Planet Ins. Co. v. Ferrell, 228 Ga.App. 264, 266 (491 S.E.2d 471) (1997) ("[P]leadings, motions and orders are to be construed according to their substance and function and not merely as to their nomenclature ...."). Under OCGA § 9-11-11.1 (e), "[a]n order granting or denying a motion to dismiss or a motion to strike [under OCGA § 9-11-11.1] shall be subject to direct appeal in accordance with subsection (a) of Code Section 5-6-34." Accord OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (13) (rendering "[a]ll judgments or orders entered pursuant to Code Section 9-11-11.1" directly appealable). The trial court's order therefore is directly appealable under OCGA §§ 5-6-34 (a) (13) and 9-11-11.1 (e).
"This Court will grant a timely application for interlocutory review if the order complained of is subject to direct appeal and the applicants have not otherwise filed a notice of appeal." Spivey v. Hembree, 268 Ga.App. 485, 486, n. 1 (602 S.E.2d 246) (2004). Accordingly, this application for interlocutory review is hereby GRANTED. See id. Tucker shall have ten days from the date of this order to file a notice of appeal in the trial court. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). If Tucker already has filed a notice of appeal in the trial court, then he need not file a second notice. The clerk of the trial court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.