Global Education - Sat Academy, LLC v. Df Duluth, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 6, 2019
DocketA20D0130
StatusPublished

This text of Global Education - Sat Academy, LLC v. Df Duluth, LLC (Global Education - Sat Academy, LLC v. Df Duluth, LLC) 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
Global Education - Sat Academy, LLC v. Df Duluth, LLC, (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

`Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ November 06, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20D0130. GLOBAL EDUCATION - SAT ACADEMY, LLC et al. v. DF DULUTH, LLC et al.

DF Duluth, LLC and NP Giant Duluth, LLC filed suit against Global Education - SAT Academy, LLC and Hyun Jae Lee (“the defendants”). After the defendants failed to timely respond to discovery, the trial court entered an order to compel responses. The defendants did not comply with the order, and the trial court entered an order striking their answer and entering default. The order prohibited defendants from introducing evidence at the damages hearing that related to the discovery they failed to produce. The defendants filed this application for discretionary appeal from the trial court’s ruling. The entry of default is not a final ruling if the issue of damages remains pending in the trial court. See Rapid Taxi Co. v. Broughton, 244 Ga. App. 427, 428 (1) (535 SE2d 780) (2000) (judgment is not final unless it disposes of the entire case); Holloway v. McMichael, 151 Ga. App. 802, 802 (261 SE2d 747) (1979) (case not final where issue of damages reserved). In order to appeal the order, the defendants were required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedure and obtain a certificate of immediate review. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Although the defendants filed a discretionary application, “[t]he discretionary appeal statute does not excuse a party seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order from complying with the additional requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).” Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996). Because the defendants failed to follow the requisite appellate procedure, we lack jurisdiction to consider this application, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Holloway v. McMichael, 151 Ga. App. at 803.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 11/06/2019 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

Holloway v. McMichael
261 S.E.2d 747 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Rapid Taxi Co. v. Broughton
535 S.E.2d 780 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
Bailey v. Bailey
471 S.E.2d 213 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Global Education - Sat Academy, LLC v. Df Duluth, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/global-education-sat-academy-llc-v-df-duluth-llc-gactapp-2019.