STEPHEN FRIEDMAN v. FLYING CRUST, LLC

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 4, 2022
DocketA22A0813
StatusPublished

This text of STEPHEN FRIEDMAN v. FLYING CRUST, LLC (STEPHEN FRIEDMAN v. FLYING CRUST, 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
STEPHEN FRIEDMAN v. FLYING CRUST, LLC, (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ February 04, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0813. STEPHEN FRIEDMAN et al. v. FLYING CRUST, LLC et al.

Petitioners Flying Crust, LLC, Garis Pierre Eddington, and Debra Ffrench filed a petition seeking an interlocutory injunction, declaratory judgment, and equitable relief against eight respondents: Fevzi Aydin, Koray Aydin, Henok Kebede, Binyam Yayine, Stephen Friedman, Birole Kose, Aydin Jewelers, LLC, and Loop Development, LLC. Several of the respondents moved to compel arbitration under an operating agreement.1 However, not all respondents were parties to the operating agreement. The trial court thus granted the motion to compel to the extent it applied to the parties to the operating agreement and stayed litigation pending the issuance of an arbitration award. Four of the respondents filed a notice of appeal from this order. We, however, lack jurisdiction. “As a general matter the grant of an application to compel arbitration is not directly appealable pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (4), but is instead an interlocutory matter reviewable pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).” Austin Regional Home Care, Inc. v. Careminders Home Care, Inc., 344 Ga. App. 608, 608 (810 SE2d 676) (2018) (punctuation omitted). Where, as here, the trial court’s order does not dismiss the underlying action in its entirety, the appellants were required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures in order to appeal. See id. 608-609; OCGA § 5-6-34

1 The motion to compel was purportedly filed on behalf of Kebede, Kose, Yayine, Friedman, and Loop Development. There was some question as to whether the attorney who filed the motion to compel represented all of the respondents at the time the motion was filed. (b). The appellants’ failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 02/04/2022 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

Austin Reg'l Home Care, Inc. v. Careminders Home Care, Inc.
810 S.E.2d 676 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
STEPHEN FRIEDMAN v. FLYING CRUST, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephen-friedman-v-flying-crust-llc-gactapp-2022.