Ptav, Inc. v. Ralph + Rita Venture, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 24, 2024
DocketA24A1474
StatusPublished

This text of Ptav, Inc. v. Ralph + Rita Venture, LLC (Ptav, Inc. v. Ralph + Rita Venture, 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
Ptav, Inc. v. Ralph + Rita Venture, LLC, (Ga. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ May 24, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A1474. PTAV, INC. v. RALPH + RITA VENTURE, LLC.

On April 4, 2024, the superior court issued an order dismissing as untimely defendant PTAV, Inc.’s appeal from a magistrate court judgment in this dispossessory proceeding. PTAV then filed both a timely application for discretionary review and, on April 15, 2024, a notice of appeal. We denied PTAV’s discretionary application on the merits. See PTAV, Inc. d/b/a “Red Martini” v. Ralph + Rita Venture, LLC, Case No. A24D0311 (May 9, 2024). The direct appeal has been docketed as the current case, no. A24A1474. We lack jurisdiction for two reasons. First, this appeal is untimely. While a notice of appeal generally may be filed within 30 days of entry of the order sought to be appealed, appeals in dispossessory actions must be filed within 7 days of the date the judgment was entered. See OCGA § 44-7-56 (b) (1); Radio Sandy Springs v. Allen Road Joint Venture, 311 Ga. App. 334, 335-336 (715 SE2d 752) (2011). PTAV’s April 15 notice of appeal was untimely filed 11 days after the April 4 judgment it seeks to appeal. Second, because we rejected PTAV’s challenges to the April 4 judgment in Case No. A24D0311, the current appeal is barred by the law of the case. See Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 327 (713 SE2d 438) (2011) (“[A]ny issue that was raised and resolved in an earlier appeal is the law of the case and is binding on this Court . . . .”) (citation and punctuation omitted); accord Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 261 (1) (649 SE2d 313) (2007) (a ruling on an application for discretionary appeal acts as res judicata in later proceedings); see also Jackson v. State, 273 Ga. 320, 320 (540 SE2d 612) (2001) (a party “is not entitled to another bite at the apple by way of a second appeal”). For the above reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 05/24/2024 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

Jackson v. State
540 S.E.2d 612 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2001)
Radio Sandy Springs, Inc. v. Allen Road Joint Venture
715 S.E.2d 752 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011)
Ross v. State
713 S.E.2d 438 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011)
Hook v. Bergen
649 S.E.2d 313 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ptav, Inc. v. Ralph + Rita Venture, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ptav-inc-v-ralph-rita-venture-llc-gactapp-2024.