Sewell v. Cancel
295 Ga. 235
Ga.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Cancel, Jain, Duque-Dizon, and Sanjeev, former CGAS shareholders, sued CGAS Defendants, The Medical Center Defendants, and Nexus after CGAS’s dissolution and restructuring.
- Medical Center announced restructuring in 2003; CGAS contract terminated and Nexus formed by former CGAS physicians in 2003.
- Plaintiffs alleged retaliation and wrongdoing (fiduciary breach, fraud) related to the restructuring and Nexus formation.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on Cancel’s claims in 2011; Cancel appealed the order.
- Before Cancel’s appeal, the trial court denied Nexus’s summary judgment; later, the trial court denied remaining defendants’ motions.
- Cross-appeals by Nexus/CGAS Defendants and Medical Center Defendants were consolidated by the Court of Appeals, which dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cross-appeals have jurisdiction to review post-notice-of-appeal orders | Cancel contends cross-appeal jurisdiction exists for all adverse rulings. | CGAS Defendants/Medical Center Defendants argue no cross-appeal for post-notice orders. | Yes; cross-appeals have jurisdiction over those orders. |
| Whether cross-appeal may review an order issued after the initial appeal but before cross-notice | Cross-appeal may include such orders if timely and properly filed. | Cross-appeal should be limited to orders tied to the main appeal. | Cross-appeal may review such orders. |
| Whether a cross-appeal must be tied to an appealable order | No strict tying requirement; cross-appeal broadly covers adverse rulings. | Requires a factual or logical tie to the main appeal. | Overruled; no tying requirement; cross-appeal may involve all adverse rulings. |
| Whether the timing of cross-appeals affects their propriety | Cross-appeals filed within the 15-day period are proper. | Post-notice orders may be outside cross-appeal scope. | Appellees may raise adverse rulings issued before filing a timely cross-appeal. |
| Impact of overruling 'tied to' standard on this case | Existing 'tied to' cases should apply. | Rationale misapplied; not needed here. | Overruled; standard clarified as jurisdictional link, not factual nexus. |
Key Cases Cited
- Executive Jet Sales, Inc. v. Jet America, Inc., 242 Ga. 307 (Ga. 1978) (permits cross-appeal for denial of motion to dismiss when tied to main appeal)
- Marathon U.S. Realties, Inc. v. Kalb, 244 Ga. 390 (Ga. 1979) (follows Executive Jet on cross-appeal despite interlocutory nature)
- Southeastern Ceramics, Inc. v. Klem, 246 Ga. 294 (Ga. 1980) (applies cross-appeal rationale to deny-only scenario on counterclaims)
- Centennial Ins. Co. v. Sandner, Inc., 259 Ga. 317 (Ga. 1989) (extends cross-appeal reach to beneficiaries beyond main parties)
- Rolleston v. Huie, 198 Ga. App. 49 (Ga. App. 1990) (illustrates tied-to concept in non-original contexts)