Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Jane Doe

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Jane Doe

DecidedNovember 9, 2023

DocketA24D0124

StatusPublished

This text of Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Jane Doe (Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Jane Doe) 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

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Jane Doe, (Ga. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ November 09, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24D0124. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al. v. JANE DOE.

In this civil action, the trial court entered an order granting the plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment as to liability only against defendants Uber Technologies, Inc, Uber USA, LLC, and Rasier, LLC (collectively, the “Applicants”). The order explicitly provided that, because damages are unliquidated, the matter must be set for a damages hearing. The Applicants thereafter filed a motion to set aside the default judgment and open default. The trial court denied the motion, and the Applicants filed this application for discretionary review. We lack jurisdiction. A default judgment as to liability only is not a final judgment. See Cryomedics, Inc. v. Smith, 180 Ga. App. 336, 337-338 (349 SE2d 223) (1986). Consequently, this case remains pending before the trial court. The Applicants therefore were required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures — including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court — to appeal the denial of their motion to set aside the default judgment and open default. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App. 435, 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989) (an application for interlocutory review is required to appeal a trial court order entered in a case that remains pending before the trial court). Their failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this application, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 11/09/2023 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

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________ November 09, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24D0124. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al. v. JANE DOE.

In this civil action, the trial court entered an order granting the plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment as to liability only against defendants Uber Technologies, Inc, Uber USA, LLC, and Rasier, LLC (collectively, the “Applicants”). The order explicitly provided that, because damages are unliquidated, the matter must be set for a damages hearing. The Applicants thereafter filed a motion to set aside the default judgment and open default. The trial court denied the motion, and the Applicants filed this application for discretionary review. We lack jurisdiction. A default judgment as to liability only is not a final judgment. See Cryomedics, Inc. v. Smith, 180 Ga. App. 336, 337-338 (349 SE2d 223) (1986). Consequently, this case remains pending before the trial court. The Applicants therefore were required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures — including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court — to appeal the denial of their motion to set aside the default judgment and open default. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App. 435, 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989) (an application for interlocutory review is required to appeal a trial court order entered in a case that remains pending before the trial court). Their failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this application, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 11/09/2023 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Jane Doe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uber-technologies-inc-v-jane-doe-gactapp-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack