Douglas Howard Ball v. Merbaum Law Group, P. C. F/K/A Merbaum and Becker, P.C

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: March 3, 2025
• Docket: A25D0267
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ March 03, 2025

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25D0267. DOUGLAS HOWARD BALL v. MERBAUM LAW GROUP, P. C. f/k/a MERBAUM AND BECKER, P.C.

In this civil action, Douglas Ball filed pro se motions to vacate a previous order and to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. Ball filed a discretionary application to challenge the trial court’s order. We, however, lack jurisdiction. Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), appeals generally may be taken from “[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below.” Here, it appears the action is still pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the order denying Ball’s motions was a non-final order. In order to appeal this ruling, Ball was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures, which include obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991). Ball’s failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures deprives us of jurisdiction over this application. See Bailey, 266 Ga. at 833. Accordingly, this application for discretionary review is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 03/03/2025 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.