Alexis Phillips v. Petsmart, LLC
This text of Alexis Phillips v. Petsmart, LLC (Alexis Phillips v. Petsmart, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA,____________________ April 22, 2025
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A25A0443. ALEXIS PHILLIPS v. PETSMART, LLC.
Alexis Phillips filed an action for damages against PetSmart, LLC. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of PetSmart and we affirmed on direct appeal. See Case No. A24A0406 (June 6, 2024). PetSmart then filed a motion for attorney fees under OCGA §§ 9-15-14 and 9-11-68. The trial court granted the motion and awarded $10,000 in fees. The court found that PetSmart was entitled to fees under both OCGA § 9-15-14 and OCGA § 9-11-68. Phillips appealed from that order and PetSmart has filed a motion to dismiss. Generally, appeals from awards of attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 must be made by discretionary application. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (10). “[H]owever, a direct appeal is permitted when it is appealed as part of a judgment that is directly appealable.” Capricorn Sys. v. Godavarthy, 253 Ga. App. 840, 841 (560 SE2d 730) (2002) (punctuation omitted). Here, the trial court also found that fees were warranted under OCGA § 9-11-68, which is normally a directly appealable judgment. See, e.g., Anglin v. Smith, 358 Ga. App. 38 (853 SE2d 142) (2020). But the trial court only awarded $10,000 in fees. That does not meet the threshold of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6), which requires a discretionary application “in all actions for damages in which the judgment is $10,000.00 or less[.]” And the order is not otherwise directly appealable, as we already addressed the court’s order granting summary judgment. Thus, because the judgment Phillips seeks to appeal does not meet the statutory threshold, we lack jurisdiction over this direct appeal. See Anderson v. Laureano, 342 Ga. App. 888, 888 (805 SE2d 636) (2017). Accordingly, PetSmart’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 04/22/2025 I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.
, Clerk.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Alexis Phillips v. Petsmart, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexis-phillips-v-petsmart-llc-gactapp-2025.