Background
Ronald Hunt, proceeding pro se, brought an action for breach of contract and related claims. The case involved four defendants, and one defendant asserted counterclaims in its answer.
On May 21, 2026, the trial court granted dismissal motions filed by the two defendants involved in this appeal. Hunt filed a direct notice of appeal from those orders. The record did not show that the remaining counterclaims had been resolved.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals dismissed Hunt’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In a multiparty or multiclaim case, an order resolving fewer than all claims or parties is not final unless the trial court expressly directs entry of final judgment under OCGA § 9-11-54(b).
No Rule 54(b) certification appeared in the record, and Hunt had not followed Georgia’s interlocutory-appeal procedure, including obtaining a certificate of immediate review under OCGA § 5-6-34(b). The dismissal orders therefore could not be reviewed by direct appeal while counterclaims remained pending.
Key Takeaways
- An order dismissing some defendants is ordinarily not final when claims or counterclaims remain unresolved.
- A Rule 54(b) certification can permit an immediate appeal from a partial disposition.
- Absent such certification, a party must use the interlocutory-appeal procedure to seek review before final judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that appellate jurisdiction depends on finality, not merely on whether a trial court has dismissed particular defendants. Litigants must identify unresolved claims and obtain the required certification or interlocutory permission before filing a direct appeal.