Bobby J. Heard v. Lateese Gamal Ford

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA,____________________ September 19, 2014 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A15A0108. BOBBY J. HEARD v. LATEESE GAMAL FORD et al. Bobby J. Heard filed a pro se complaint against Lateese Gamal Ford, Charlotte R. Ford and Ford Enterprises, LLC, alleging RICO claims and fraud claims and seeking punitive damages.1 Heard filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. Heard then filed this direct appeal. The trial court’s order denying the motion for summary judgment was not a final order, because the case remains pending below. Accordingly, Heard was required to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) to obtain appellate review at this point. See Pace Constr. Corp. v. Northpark Assoc., 215 Ga. App. 438, 439 ( 450 SE2d 828 ) (1994). Because Heard failed to comply with the requisite interlocutory procedures, his premature appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia 09/19/2014 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. [1] Although Heard styled his complaint as one seeking “declaratory judgment, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and monetary damages,” the complaint actually alleged RICO violations and fraud. Thus, OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (4), which permits a direct appeal from orders denying injunctive relief, has no application. See Pettus v. Drs. Paylay, Frank & Brown, P.C., 193 Ga. App. 335 ( 387 SE2d 613 ) (1989) (in construing pleadings, substance controls over nomenclature).