Bobby J. Heard v. Lateese Gamal Ford

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA,____________________ September 19, 2014

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0108. BOBBY J. HEARD v. LATEESE GAMAL FORD et al.

Bobby J. Heard filed a pro se complaint against Lateese Gamal Ford, Charlotte R. Ford and Ford Enterprises, LLC, alleging RICO claims and fraud claims and seeking punitive damages.1 Heard filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. Heard then filed this direct appeal. The trial court’s order denying the motion for summary judgment was not a final order, because the case remains pending below. Accordingly, Heard was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) to obtain appellate review at this point. See Pace Constr. Corp. v. Northpark Assoc.,215 Ga. App. 438, 439 (450 SE2d 828) (1994). Because Heard failed to comply with the requisite interlocutory procedures, his premature appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 09/19/2014 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 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.

1 Although Heard styled his complaint as one seeking “declaratory judgment, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and monetary damages,” the complaint actually alleged RICO violations and fraud. Thus, OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (4), which permits a direct appeal from orders denying injunctive relief, has no application. See Pettus v. Drs. Paylay, Frank & Brown, P.C., 193 Ga. App. 335 (387 SE2d 613) (1989) (in construing pleadings, substance controls over nomenclature).