Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0858. MITCHELL GENERAL & COSMETIC DENTISTRY, INC. et al.

v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.

In this civil action, three of the defendants, specifically Mitchell General &

Cosmetic Dentistry, Inc., Barbara GradyMitchell, and Steven Allgood Mitchell, have

filed a direct appeal of the trial court’s order denying their motion to enforce

settlement agreement, denying their motion for an emergency protective order, and

granting the motion of the plaintiff to compel discovery against them. Although the

case remains pending below, the defendants argue that the trial court’s denial of their

motion to enforce settlement agreement is directly appealable under the collateral

order doctrine.1 We disagree, and conclude that we lack jurisdiction because the

interlocutory appeal procedures were not followed.

OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) authorizes direct appeals only from “final judgments,

that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below[.]” However,

“[t]he collateral order doctrine permits appealsfroma small category of decisionsthat

are (i) conclusive, (ii) that resolve important questions separate from the merits, and

(iii) that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in the

underlying action.” (Punctuation omitted.) Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 305

Ga. App. 450, 452 (1) (699 SE2d 600) (2010). “[T]he collateral order doctrine has

application to only a very small class of interlocutory rulings.” (Punctuation

omitted.) Rivera v. Washington, 298 Ga. 770, 775 (784 SE2d 775) (2016). 

1 The defendants requested that the trial court certify its order for immediate

review, but the trial court did not grant their request. 

January 25, 2018
Here, the denial of the motion to enforce settlement agreement is not directly

appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The defendants’ claim that they have

already resolved their dispute with the plaintiff can be effectively reviewed on appeal

once a final judgment is entered. See Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc.,

511 U. S. 863 (114 SCt 1992, 128 LE2d 842) (1994) (under the federal collateral

order doctrine, the refusal to enforce a settlement agreement claimed to shelter a party

from suit altogether does not supply a basis for an immediate appeal, as the potential

right to not defend the case is effectively reviewable on final judgment); see also

Rivera, 298 Ga. at 776-778 (an interlocutory order rejecting a motion to dismiss based

on a claim of immunity is not directly appealable under the collateral order doctrine).

Thus, the defendants were required to follow the interlocutory appeal

procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) to obtain immediate appellate review of the trial

court’s order. Because the defendants failed to follow the required appellate

procedures, their appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

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.

01/25/2018