TROIKA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC v. SHARI MENDEZ

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 23, 2020
DocketA21A0719
StatusPublished

This text of TROIKA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC v. SHARI MENDEZ (TROIKA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC v. SHARI MENDEZ) 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
TROIKA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC v. SHARI MENDEZ, (Ga. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ December 16, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A0719. TROIKA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC et al. v. SHARI MENDEZ.

In this personal injury action, Shari Mendez sued Troika Entertainment Group, Inc., Troika Entertainment, LLC, and Troika Entertainment, Inc. (collectively “Troika Entertainment”) for damages. Troika Entertainment failed to file a timely answer, and Mendez moved for entry of default judgment. The trial court granted Mendez’s motion, held a hearing on damages, and on November 1, 2019, entered its “Final Judgment and Judgment Against Troika Parties,” in which it awarded Mendez $500,000 in damages. On February 28, 2020, Troika Entertainment filed its “Motion to Open Default and, in the Alternative, Motion to Set Aside the Judgment.” The trial court denied the motion, and Troika Entertainment filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction. Because Troika Entertainment’s motion was filed after final judgment was entered in this case, “the procedures of OCGA § 9-11-55 (b) were inapplicable, and OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) applies.” Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. v. Hill, 252 Ga. App. 774, 780 (7) (556 SE2d 468) (2001). Troika Entertainment was authorized to seek to have the default judgment set aside under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d), but an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside under this Code section must be taken by application for discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8); Jim Ellis Atlanta, Inc. v. Adamson, 283 Ga. App. 116, 116 (640 SE2d 688) (2006). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). Troika Entertainment’s failure to follow the required appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 12/16/2020 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

Jim Ellis Atlanta, Inc. v. Adamson
640 S.E.2d 688 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2006)
Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. v. Hill
556 S.E.2d 468 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2001)
Smoak v. Department of Human Resources
471 S.E.2d 60 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
TROIKA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC v. SHARI MENDEZ, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troika-entertainment-llc-v-shari-mendez-gactapp-2020.