RREF II DB DRI, LLC v. COMMERCE PLAZA OFFICE PARTNERS, LLC

Court of Appeals of Georgia

RREF II DB DRI, LLC v. COMMERCE PLAZA OFFICE PARTNERS, LLC

DecidedAugust 25, 2016

DocketA16A2202

StatusPublished

This text of RREF II DB DRI, LLC v. COMMERCE PLAZA OFFICE PARTNERS, LLC (RREF II DB DRI, LLC v. COMMERCE PLAZA OFFICE PARTNERS, 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

RREF II DB DRI, LLC v. COMMERCE PLAZA OFFICE PARTNERS, LLC, (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ August 15, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A2202. RREF II DB DRI, LLC et al. v. COMMERCE PLAZA OFFICE PARTNERS, LLC.

RREF II DB DRI, LLC filed this direct appeal from the trial court’s order granting a 30-day temporary restraining order (“TRO”) prohibiting it from “taking any adverse actions relating to the parties’ rights” under a parking agreement. An appeal from the grant of a TRO, however, must be taken by application for discretionary appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (9). RREF II DB DRI, LLC’s failure to follow the proper appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.1 Appellees have filed a “Motion to Dismiss Appellant’s Direct Appeal.” Said motion is hereby dismissed as moot.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 08/15/2016 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 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.

1 In its notice of appeal, RREF II DB DRI, LLC contends that the trial court’s order is directly appealable because it imposes an interlocutory injunction as well as a TRO. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (4) (granting a right of direct appeal from all orders “granting or refusing applications . . . for interlocutory or final injunctions”). RREF II DB DRI, LLC cites a sentence in the court’s order stating that RREF II DB DRI, LLC “would be well advised not to take any further unilateral purported actions relating to the Parking Agreement, before this case is adjudicated.” That language, however, does not actually enjoin RREF II DB DRI, LLC from doing anything. Instead, it is merely advisory language that does not render the order directly appealable.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ August 15, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A2202. RREF II DB DRI, LLC et al. v. COMMERCE PLAZA OFFICE PARTNERS, LLC.

RREF II DB DRI, LLC filed this direct appeal from the trial court’s order granting a 30-day temporary restraining order (“TRO”) prohibiting it from “taking any adverse actions relating to the parties’ rights” under a parking agreement. An appeal from the grant of a TRO, however, must be taken by application for discretionary appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (9). RREF II DB DRI, LLC’s failure to follow the proper appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.1 Appellees have filed a “Motion to Dismiss Appellant’s Direct Appeal.” Said motion is hereby dismissed as moot.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 08/15/2016 Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 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.

1 In its notice of appeal, RREF II DB DRI, LLC contends that the trial court’s order is directly appealable because it imposes an interlocutory injunction as well as a TRO. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (4) (granting a right of direct appeal from all orders “granting or refusing applications . . . for interlocutory or final injunctions”). RREF II DB DRI, LLC cites a sentence in the court’s order stating that RREF II DB DRI, LLC “would be well advised not to take any further unilateral purported actions relating to the Parking Agreement, before this case is adjudicated.” That language, however, does not actually enjoin RREF II DB DRI, LLC from doing anything. Instead, it is merely advisory language that does not render the order directly appealable.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

RREF II DB DRI, LLC v. COMMERCE PLAZA OFFICE PARTNERS, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rref-ii-db-dri-llc-v-commerce-plaza-office-partners-llc-gactapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack