Ruchee Sachdeva v. James Lewis Redmond, III

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: A26A0488
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ October 14, 2025

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26A0487. JAMES LEWIS REDMOND, III v. RUCHEE SACHDEVA. A26A0488. RUCHEE SACHDEVA v. JAMES LEWIS REDMOND, III

Ruchee Sachdeva filed a dispossessory proceeding against James Lewis Redmond, III, in magistrate court. Redmond filed counterclaims, alleging breach of right to quiet enjoyment, alienation from his children, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, theft by conversion and damages for wrongful eviction. Following the magistrate trial, the court found for Sachdeva, granting her a writ of possession and denying Redmond’s counterclaims. Redmond filed a petition for review to the superior court. The superior court dismissed his petition due to Redmond’s failure to pay costs, including monthly rent into the court registry. Redmond filed an application for discretionary appeal, which we granted. See Redmond v. Sachdeva, Case No. A24D0188 (Jan. 10, 2024). On appeal, we vacated the superior court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. See Redmond v. Sachdeva, Case No. A24A1417 (March 14, 2025). After remittitur, the superior court ultimately dismissed all of Redmond’s remaining counterclaims except his claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the superior court granted Sachdeva’s motion for summary judgment as to Redmond’s claim for breach of contract, and denied it as to his claim for unjust enrichment. Redmond then filed the instant appeal, A26A0487, seeking to appeal the grant of summary judgment as to his breach of contract claim. Sachdeva filed a cross-appeal, A26A0488, to challenge the denial of her motion for summary judgment as to Redmond’s unjust enrichment claim. We, however, lack jurisdiction. Appeals from superior court decisions reviewing lower court decisions by petition for review must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), (b). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). Because this case involves a petition for superior court review of a magistrate court decision, Redmond was required to file an application for discretionary appeal. See Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga. App. 874, 875 (581 SE2d 333) (2003). And under OCGA § 5-6-38 (a), a cross-appeal may only be brought where a valid appeal exists. Because Redmond failed to comply with the discretionary appeal procedure, and no party has filed a valid appeal here, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider these appeals, which are hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 10/14/2025 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.