Ronaldo Ratliff v. Ax Auto, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: August 22, 2025
• Docket: A25A2109
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ August 22, 2025

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A25A2109. RONALDO RATLIFF v. AX AUTO, INC.

After a jury verdict, the trial court granted defendant AX Auto, Inc.’s motion for a directed verdict as to one count of the Ronaldo Ratliff’s complaint and granted a motion for new trial as to the other claims. Ratliff filed a direct appeal from that order. We, however, lack jurisdiction. In a civil case, “[t]he grant of a motion for new trial is not a final order from which a direct appeal may be taken.” Murray v. Rozier, 186 Ga. App. 184, 184 (367 SE2d 886) (1988) (emphasis in original). See also Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bishop, 170 Ga. App. 9, 9 (316 SE2d 167) (1984) (“A judgment granting a new trial is not a final judgment[.]”) (citation and punctuation omitted). To obtain appellate review at this juncture, Ratliff was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Murray, 186 Ga. App. at 184. Because Ratliff did not comply with those requirements, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 08/22/2025 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.