Georgia Court of Appeals, 2020

R v. DRONAVALLI v. 21 14TH STREET ONE-THIRD LLC

R v. DRONAVALLI v. 21 14TH STREET ONE-THIRD LLC
Georgia Court of Appeals · Decided October 21, 2020

R v. DRONAVALLI v. 21 14TH STREET ONE-THIRD LLC

Opinion

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA,____________________ October 20, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A21A0266. R. V. DRONAVALLI v. 21 14TH STREET ONE-THIRD, LLC et al.

R. V. Dronavalli filed a breach of contract action against 21 14th Street One- Third, LLC (“One-Third”) and Kiran Gupta. One-Third and Gupta answered, counterclaimed, and filed a third-party complaint against 21 14th Street Two-Thirds, LLC (“Two-Thirds”) and Shi Shailendra. One-Third then filed a motion to dismiss and Gupta filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Two-Thirds and Shailendra also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Thereafter, the trial court granted One-Third’s and Gupta’s motions. Dronavalli then filed this direct appeal. 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.” In a case involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a decision adjudicating fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not a final judgment. Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App. 628, 629 (385 SE2d 731) (1989). For a party to obtain appellate review under such circumstances, there must be either an express determination by the trial court that there is no just reason for delay under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) or compliance with the interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See id. Where neither code section is followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed. Id. Here, the trial court specifically stated that it was not addressing the third-party defendants’ motion and did not direct the entry of judgment under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b). Consequently, because the third-party defendants remain in the case, this action remains pending in the trial court, and Dronavalli therefore was required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court – to appeal the dismissal of its breach of contract claim.

See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App. 435, 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989). Dronavalli’s failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this premature direct appeal, 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,____________________ 10/20/2020 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.