Clayton Lee v. Kyoung Hee Kim Peresta

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 21, 2022
DocketA22A1557
StatusPublished

This text of Clayton Lee v. Kyoung Hee Kim Peresta (Clayton Lee v. Kyoung Hee Kim Peresta) 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.

Bluebook
Clayton Lee v. Kyoung Hee Kim Peresta, (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ June 21, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1557. CLAYTON LEE v. KYOUNG HEE KIM PERESTA.

Clayton Lee filed suit against Kyoung Hee Kim Peresta in magistrate court, and Peresta asserted several counterclaims against Lee. The case was transferred to the superior court, which entered an order granting Peresta’s motion for directed verdict as to all of Lee’s claims. Lee then filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction. “In a case involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a decision adjudicating fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of less than all the parties is not a final judgment.” Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App. 628, 629 (385 SE2d 731) (1989) (punctuation omitted). Under such circumstances, there must be either an express determination that there is no just reason for delay under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) or compliance with the interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See id. “Where neither of these code sections are followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed.” Id. (punctuation omitted). The record does not indicate that the superior court directed the entry of judgment under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) or that the court has resolved Peresta’s counterclaims against Lee. Consequently, because this action remains pending below, Lee was required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court – to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App. 435, 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989). Lee’s failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 06/21/2022 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

Johnson v. Hospital Corporation of America
385 S.E.2d 731 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Bailey v. Bailey
471 S.E.2d 213 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996)
Boyd v. State
383 S.E.2d 906 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Clayton Lee v. Kyoung Hee Kim Peresta, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayton-lee-v-kyoung-hee-kim-peresta-gactapp-2022.