Ronaldo Ratliff v. Ax Auto, Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA,____________________ August 22, 2025 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A25A2109. RONALDO RATLIFF v. AX AUTO, INC. After a jury verdict, the trial court granted defendant AX Auto, Inc.’s motion for a directed verdict as to one count of the Ronaldo Ratliff’s complaint and granted a motion for new trial as to the other claims. Ratliff filed a direct appeal from that order. We, however, lack jurisdiction. In a civil case, “[t]he grant of a motion for new trial is not a final order from which a direct appeal may be taken.” Murray v. Rozier, 186 Ga. App. 184, 184 ( 367 SE2d 886 ) (1988) (emphasis in original). See also Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bishop, 170 Ga. App. 9, 9 ( 316 SE2d 167 ) (1984) (“A judgment granting a new trial is not a final judgment[.]”) (citation and punctuation omitted). To obtain appellate review at this juncture, Ratliff was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Murray, 186 Ga. App. at 184 . Because Ratliff did not comply with those requirements, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________ 08/22/2025 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.