Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1075. EDDIE JEROME STREETER et al. v. CITY OF ALBANY.

Eddie Jerome Streeter and Allen Edward Alford filed suit against the City of

Albany (“the City”) and two unidentified City law-enforcement officers, “John Doe”

and “Mary Roe,” asserting, in 18 counts, claims for negligent hiring, training,

supervision, and retention; negligent entrustment; respondeat superior; excessive

force; and deprivation of property. The City filed a motion to dismiss the claims

against it for negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention, negligent

entrustment, and respondeat superior for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The City

also filed a separate motion to dismiss the claims against it for excessive force and

deprivation of property for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

On October 10, 2017, the trial court granted both the City’s motions and dismissed

the first ten counts of the complaint. The order was silent as to the remaining eight

counts. Streeter and Alford then filed the instant direct appeal. We, however, lack

jurisdiction.

“In a case involvingmultiple parties or multiple claims, a decision adjudicating

fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of less than all the parties is not

a final judgment.” Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App. 628, 629 (385

SE2d 731) (1989) (punctuation omitted). Although the trial court dismissed Streeter

and Alford’s claims against the City, their claims against the unidentified lawenforcement officers have not been adjudicated.

1

“In such circumstances, there must

1 The officers remain, at this time, unidentified. But if and when the plaintiffs

discover their identities, under OCGA § 9-11-15 (c), they may “amend the original

August 09, 2018
be an express determination under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) or there must be compliance

with the interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Where neither of

these code sections[is]followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed.” Id.

(punctuation omitted).

The trial court’s order in this case did not direct the entry of judgment pursuant

to OCGA § 9-11-54 (b). Therefore, the challenged order is not a final order, and it is

appealable only through the interlocutory appeal proceduressetforth in OCGA § 5-6-

34 (b). Shoenthal v. Shoenthal, 333 Ga. App. 729, 730 (776 SE2d 663) (2015);

Johnson, 192 Ga. App. at 629. Streeter and Alford’s failure to follow the proper

appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction to consider this direct appeal, which

is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

pleadings so as to change the party against whom a claim is asserted.” Robinson v.

Estate of Jester, 333 Ga. App. 41, 43 (775 SE2d 569) (2015) (punctuation omitted).

Moreover, for purposes of renewing a suit under OCGA § 9-2-61, an “original suit

is void if service was never perfected, since the filing of a complaint without

perfecting service does not constitute a pending suit. . . . However, unless and until

the trial court enters an order dismissing a valid action, it is merely voidable and not

void.” Hobbs v. Arthur, 264 Ga. 359, 360 (444 SE2d 322) (1994); see Milburn v.

Nationwide Ins. Co., 228 Ga. App. 398, 400 (1) (a) (491 SE2d 848) (1997) (noting

that plaintiff’s “John Doe” action with service on his uninsured motorist carrier

“constituted a valid, pending action on its face, and unless and until the trial court

enters an order dismissing a valid action, it is merely voidable and not void”)

(punctuation omitted). Here, although the officers have not been served, service was

perfected on the City. Accordingly, the suit is not void. And the trial court dismissed

only the counts against the City; it did not dismiss the entire action.

08/09/2018