DESIREE N. HALL v. AUTOSTAR ACCEPTANCE, INC.
This text of DESIREE N. HALL v. AUTOSTAR ACCEPTANCE, INC. (DESIREE N. HALL v. AUTOSTAR ACCEPTANCE, INC.) 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,____________________ July 12, 2021
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
A21A1647. DESIREE N. HALL et al. v. AUTOSTAR ACCEPTANCE, INC.
In this negligence case, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Alif Rogers and Autostar Acceptance, Inc. (“Autostar”). The trial court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims against Autostar, on the basis that such claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiffs then filed this direct appeal from that order. We, however, 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). In 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 [is] followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed.” Id. (punctuation omitted). Here, the trial court’s order resolved the plaintiffs’ claims against Autostar, but it did not address the plaintiffs’ claims against Rogers, and therefore it was not a final judgment. Moreover, the trial court did not direct the entry of final judgment in accordance with OCGA § 9-11-54 (b). Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs could appeal the order only by following the interlocutory appeal procedure set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Johnson, 192 Ga. App. at 629. The plaintiffs’ failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 07/12/2021 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
DESIREE N. HALL v. AUTOSTAR ACCEPTANCE, INC., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desiree-n-hall-v-autostar-acceptance-inc-gactapp-2021.