Opinion
A22A1675
02-23-2023
DALJEET SINGH et al. v. ULTRA GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. et al.
The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
Appellants Daljeet Singh and Raina Brothers, LLC filed this direct appeal to challenge an order entered against them by the superior court in their certiorari case. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), appeals generally may be taken from "[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below." "Generally, an order is final and appealable when it leaves no issues remaining to be resolved, constitutes the court's final ruling on the merits of the action, and leaves the parties with no further recourse in the trial court." Thomas v. Douglas Co., 217 Ga.App. 520, 522 (1) (457 S.E.2d 835) (1995). In the order at issue here, the trial court expressly reserved its ruling on a request for attorney's fees pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14, stating further that a hearing on attorney fees would be scheduled later. Therefore, this order is not final. See Miller v. Miller, 288 Ga. 274, 282 (4) (705 S.E.2d 839) (2010) ("There was no final judgment until the reserved issues of attorney fees [sought under both OCGA § 19-6-2 and OCGA § 9-15-14] . . . were resolved[.]), cited in Edokpolor v. Grady Mem. Hosp. Corp., 302 Ga. 733, 735 (808 S.E.2d 653) (2017) (noting that "a case remains pending in the trial court where that court has explicitly reserved issues related to costs and attorney fees for future judgment"; and further contrasting a motion for expenses "made during the pendency of the action" from a post-judgment filing); Woodruff v. Choate, 334 Ga.App. 574, 576 (1) (a) (780 S.E.2d 25) (2015) (noting that an order reserving the issue of attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 and OCGA § 19-9-3 was not a final judgment because it did not adjudicate all the pending claims).
Because the order appealed from is thus not final, Appellants were required to follow the interlocutory application procedures in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Miller v. Miller, 282 Ga. 164, 165 (646 S.E.2d 469) (2007); CitiFinancial Svcs. v. Holland, 310 Ga.App. 480, 481 (713 S.E.2d 678) (2011). Their failure to do so deprives this Court of jurisdiction over the appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.