Trimen Enterprises Inc v Marco Lopes, Dismissed

Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Trimen Enterprises, Inc. v. Marco Lopes

Court of Appeals of Georgia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A26A1712

• Disposition: Dismissed

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (44)

• PDF

Disposition

Dismissed

Combined Opinion

Court of Appeals
of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________
April 17, 2026

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A26A1712. TRIMEN ENTERPRISES, INC. v. MARCO LOPES.

In 2018, Marco Lopes filed a complaint against Elliott Hennington, Trimen
Enterprises, Inc., Ready 1 Renovations USA, LLC, Steve Swinson, and Shalisha
Jackson. Hennington, acting pro se, filed an answer on behalf of himself, individually,
and Trimen. Ultimately, Lopes moved to strike Trimen’s answer and for default
judgment against Trimen. Trimen filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer.
After a hearing, the trial court denied Trimen’s motion to file an amended answer,
and granted Lopes’s motions to strike and for default judgment against Trimen,
specifically noting that the claims against Hennington remain pending. Trimen seeks
to directly appeal these rulings. We, however, lack jurisdiction.
Pretermitting the issue of whether Trimen’s prematurely filed notice of appeal
ripened, under OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(1), direct appeals generally may be taken from
“[a]ll final judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court
below[.]” Moreover, in a case involving multiple parties and claims, a decision
adjudicating fewer than all the claims is not a final judgment. Yanes v. Escobar, 362 Ga.
App. 896, 897 (870 SE2d 506) (2022) (“an order is final and appealable when it leaves
no issues remaining to be resolved, constitutes the court’s final ruling on the merits
of the action, and leaves the parties with no further recourse in the trial court”)
(punctuation omitted). For a party to obtain appellate review under such
circumstances, there must be either an express determination by the trial court that
there is no just reason for delay under OCGA § 9-11-54(b) or compliance with the
interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34(b). Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of
Am., 192 Ga. App. 628, 629 (385 SE2d 731) (1989). Where neither code section is
followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed. Id.
Here, the case remains pending below, and the trial court did not direct an entry
of judgment under OCGA § 9-11-54(b). Accordingly, Trimen was required to comply
with the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34(b), including obtaining
a certificate of immediate review from the trial court, in order to obtain appellate
review. See Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551 (2) (787 SE2d 731) (2016). Trimen’s
failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures deprives us of jurisdiction over
this appeal. See In re Bruni, 369 Ga. App. 488, 493(8) (893 SE2d 862) (2023) (“The
jurisdiction of an appellate court to consider an appeal depends upon whether the
appeal is taken in substantial compliance with the rules of appellate procedure
prescribing the conditions under which the judgment of the trial court may be
considered appealable.”) (citation and punctuation omitted). Accordingly, this appeal
is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
04/17/2026
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.