Dawn Wooten v. Mahendra Amin
This text of Dawn Wooten v. Mahendra Amin (Dawn Wooten v. Mahendra Amin) 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,____________________ October 11, 2024
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A25A0405. DAWN WOOTEN v. MAHENDRA AMIN.
In this civil action, Dawn Wooten filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Georgia’s anti-SLAPP statute, OCGA § 9-11-11.1. After Mahendra Amin served discovery requests regarding actual malice, Wooten asked the trial court for a protective order to stay discovery, which the trial court denied. Wooten timely initiated this direct appeal to challenge the trial court’s order. We, however, lack jurisdiction. As a general rule, a direct appeal requires that the judgment or order appealed to be final, which means the case is no longer pending below. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1); Fein v. Chenault, 330 Ga. App. 222, 227 (767 SE2d 766) (2014). Here, the action remains pending below. The law, however, permits a direct appeal from certain non-final orders. Specifically, a direct appeal may be had from “[a]n order granting or denying a motion to dismiss or a motion to strike” under Georgia’s anti- SLAPP statute. OCGA § 9-11-11.1 (e); see OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (13). Wooten contends that the denial of her motion for a protective order is also appealable under these statutes. Because the trial court’s order was not a denial of a motion to strike or a motion to dismiss, the order was not an appealable order under OCGA § 9-11-11.1 (e). It follows that Wooten has no right to a direct appeal under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (13). Because the action, including Wooten’s motion to dismiss under Georgia’s anti-SLAPP statute, remains pending below, Wooten was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures, including obtaining a certificate of immediate review, to appeal the trial court’s order. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App. 435, 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989). Her failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Cle rk’s Offic e , Atlanta,____________________ 10/11/2024 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
Dawn Wooten v. Mahendra Amin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawn-wooten-v-mahendra-amin-gactapp-2024.