Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
AMADO et al. v. CITY OF ATLANTA et al.
Karen Amado and Joel Cogdell d/b/a Onyx Productions International sued the City of Atlanta (“the City”), the City Attorney, members of the City Council, and Forrest Johnson (collectively “the defendants”) for alleged violations of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (OCGA § 16-14-1 et seq.). The defendants moved the trial court to strike the complaint in its entirety pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12(f), and to order plaintiffs to redraft the complaint in compliance with OCGA § 9-11-8(a)(2). The defendants also moved to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel on the ground that he is a material witness to certain events in dispute. The trial court granted the motions, and the plaintiffs directly appealed both orders.
The defendants moved this Court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that neither order was directly appealable. The defendants argue that because both orders were interlocutory, and plaintiffs failed to employ the interlocutory appeal procedure, the appeal must be dismissed. We agree.
Our Supreme Court and this Court have both held that orders disqualifying counsel are interlocutory, and that parties desiring to appeal such orders are required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedure. See Cherry v. Coast House, Ltd., 257 Ga. 403, 404(2), 359 S.E.2d 904 (1987); Ewing Holding Corp. v. Egan-Stanley Investments, 154 Ga.App. 493, 496(1), 268 S.E.2d 733 (1980). We have also ruled that where a trial court grants a motion to strike, and the case remains pending in the trial court, the order is not directly appealable. See Lunsford v. Fulton County, 227 Ga. 547, 181 S.E.2d 865 (1971); see also Mem. Med. Center v. Moore, 184 Ga.App. 176, 361 S.E.2d 49 (1987); Whatley v. Blue Cross, etc., 165 Ga.App. 340, 341, 301 S.E.2d 60 (1983).
Because there is no certificate authorizing an appeal from these interlocutory orders, they are not appealable under the Appellate Practice Act, and the appeal must be dismissed. See Lunsford, supra; Ewing Holding Corp., supra.
Appeal dismissed.
RUFFIN, Judge.
BIRDSONG, P.J., and ELDRIDGE, J., concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. A97A1544.
Decided: October 10, 1997
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)