Yellowstone, LLC v. Mark Thompson
A18D0111
Ga. Ct. App.Oct 16, 2017Background
- Yellowstone, LLC moved to intervene in an ongoing civil action and asked the trial court to stay discovery and other proceedings pending resolution of a related appeal (Case No. A17A1235).
- The trial court allowed Yellowstone to intervene but refused to stay the proceedings and declined to issue a certificate of immediate review for an interlocutory appeal.
- Yellowstone filed an application for discretionary review in the Court of Appeals seeking to appeal the denial of the stay; it also indicated it filed a direct appeal that had not been docketed.
- The Court of Appeals treated the trial court’s denial of the stay as a nonfinal/interlocutory order while the case remained pending below.
- Yellowstone did not obtain a certificate of immediate review as required for interlocutory appeals, depriving the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of a stay via the filed application | Yellowstone argued it should be allowed to appeal the denial of the stay (and alternatively filed a direct appeal) | Trial court order denying stay is interlocutory; Yellowstone failed to follow interlocutory appeal procedures (no certificate of immediate review) | Court: No jurisdiction; application dismissed |
| Whether denial of a certificate of immediate review is independently appealable | Yellowstone effectively sought review of the trial court’s refusal to issue the certificate | Denial of a certificate is not an appealable order | Court: Ruling declining certificate is not appealable |
| Whether denial of stay constitutes injunctive/equitable relief allowing direct appeal under OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(4) or discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(9) | Yellowstone argued the denial should be treated as injunctive relief permitting direct/discretionary appeal | Denial of a stay is not equitable/injunctive but an exercise of court docket-control inherent power | Court: Denial of stay does not qualify as injunctive relief for direct or discretionary appeal |
| Whether pending direct appeal (not yet docketed) affects jurisdiction here | Yellowstone noted it filed a direct appeal from the denial of the stay | The Court noted the direct appeal was not before it/docketed and did not cure the interlocutory-procedure defect | Court: Absence of required interlocutory certificate controls; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Riverdale Apartments, L.P., 218 Ga. App. 685 (trial court’s denial of stay was interlocutory)
- Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App. 435 (interlocutory appeal procedures required)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832 (failure to obtain certificate of immediate review deprives appellate jurisdiction)
- Price v. State, 237 Ga. 352 (denial of a certificate of immediate review is not appealable)
- McAllaster v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 212 Ga. App. 697 (orders staying or not staying proceedings are docket-control, not equitable injunctions)