Goshayeshi v. Mehrabian, 501 S.E.2d 265 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Goshayeshi v. Mehrabian, 501 S.E.2d 265 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2018–2023 · …the grant of an application to compel arbitration is not directly appealable pursuant to ocga 5-6-34 (a) (4), but is instead an interlocutory matter reviewable pursuant to ocga 5-6-34 (b). at p. 81 ✓
29 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Torres v. PIEDMONT BUILDERS, INC. (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2009 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the order to compel arbitration from which goshayeshi appeals is not a final judgment
cited Cited as authority (rule) Richard C. Barnes v. Diamond South Construction, LLC
Ga. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
Goshayeshi v. Mehrabian, 232 Ga. App. 81, 82 ( 502 SE2d 265 ) (1998) (citations and punctuation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Austin Regional Home Care Inc. v. Careminders Home Care Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
As a general matter “[t]he grant of an application to compel arbitration is not directly appealable pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (4), but is instead an interlocutory matter reviewable pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).” Goshayeshi v. Mehrabian, 232 Ga. App. 81, 81 ( 501 SE2d 265 ) (1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mary Alice Smith as Administrator of the Estate of Mary G. Smith v. Ggnsc Tifton, LLC D/B/A Golden Livingcenter-Tifton
Ga. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Goshayeshi v. Mehrabian, 232 Ga. App. 81, 82 ( 501 SE2d 265 ) (1998); Pace Constr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sawyers v. Herrin-Gear Chevrolet Co., Inc. (2×)
Miss. · 2010 · confidence medium
Assocs., Inc., 107 P.3d 1006, 1008 (Colo.Ct.App.2004); Evans v. Dreyfuss Bros., Inc., 971 A.2d 179, 186 (D.C.2009); Goshayeshi v. Mehrabian, 232 Ga.App. 81 , 501 S.E.2d 265, 266 (1998); Dan Wiebold Ford, Inc. v. Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc., 142 Idaho 235 , 127 P.3d 138, 141 (2005); National Educ.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Andria Sawyers v. Herrin-Gear Chevrolet Company, Inc.
Miss. · 2008 · confidence medium
Assocs., Inc., 107 P. 3d 1006, 1008 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004); Evans v. Dreyfuss Bros., Inc., 971 A. 2d 179, 186 (D.C. 2009); Goshayeshi v. Mehrabian, 501 S.E. 2d 265, 266 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998); Dan Wiebold Ford, Inc. v. Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc., 127 P. 3d 138, 141 (Idaho 2005); National Educ.
discussed Cited "see" Extremity Healthcare, Inc. v. Access to Care America, LLC (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Goshayeshi v. Mehrabian, 232 Ga. App. 81, 82 ( 501 SE2d 265 ) (1998).
discussed Cited "see" Extremity Healthcare, Inc. v. Access to Care America, LLC (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Goshayeshi v. Mehrabian, 232 Ga. App. 81, 82 ( 501 SE2d 265 ) (1998).
discussed Cited "see" Stephen Montoya v. Idk Homes, Inc. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Goshayeshi v. Mehrabian, 232 Ga. App. 81, 82 ( 501 SE2d 265 ) (1998); Pace Constr.
discussed Cited "see" Phillip Connell v. Farmers and Merchants Bank (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Goshayeshi v. Mehrabian, 232 Ga. App. 81, 82 ( 501 SE2d 265 ) (1998) (order compelling arbitration is a non- final ruling); Johnson & Johnson v. Kaufman, 226 Ga. App. 77, 78 (485 Se2d 525) (1997) (discovery orders generally are interlocutory and not directly appealable as final judgments).
discussed Cited "see" Shirley D. White-Lett v. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, LLP (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Goshayeshi v. Mehrabian, 232 Ga. App. 81, 82 ( 501 SE2d 265 ) (1998); Pace Constr.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." James R. Harper III v. Stephen R Harper (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Goshayeshi v. Mehrabian, 232 Ga. App. 81, 82 ( 501 SE2d 265 ) (1998) (an order compelling arbitration and staying court proceedings is not a final judgment within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), but instead, it is a non-final ruling subject to the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
GOSHAYESHI
v.
MEHRABIAN
A98A0857.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Apr 3, 1998.
501 S.E.2d 265
Dupree, Johnson & Poole, A. Gregory Poole, for appellant., Gerald W. Fudge, for appellee.
Eldridge.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
Eldridge, Judge.

In this direct appeal following an arbitration award, appellant/ defendant Mohammed Goshayeshi challenges a Cobb County trial[*82] court’s order granting plaintiff/appellee’s application to compel arbitration. Appellant asserts that he did not consent in writing to binding arbitration. It is for this reason also that appellant contends the trial court erred in subsequently affirming the arbitration award.

Decided April 3, 1998 Dupree, Johnson & Poole, A. Gregory Poole, for appellant. Gerald W. Fudge, for appellee.

“The grant of an application to compel arbitration is not directly appealable pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (4), but is instead an interlocutory matter reviewable pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). [Cits.] A party seeking appellate review from an interlocutory order must follow the interlocutory application procedure set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), which includes obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court. [Cit.]” Pace Constr. Corp. v. Northpark Assn., 215 Ga. App. 438, 439 (450 SE2d 828) (1994). The correctness of this mandatory procedure is illustrated no more clearly than in this case, wherein the record shows that appellant failed to take any affirmative action to stay arbitration proceedings prior to the trial court’s order or to contest arbitration proceedings after the trial court’s order.[1]

Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed. The order to compel arbitration from which Goshayeshi appeals is not a final judgment, and he failed to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Pace, supra at 439; McAllaster v. Merrill Lynch &c., 212 Ga. App. 697 (443 SE2d 9) (1994).

Appeal dismissed.

McMurray, P. J., and Blackburn, J., concur.
1

In order to perfect the record for appellate review, a party must register a timely objection to a motion to compel arbitration. To that end, the statute provides that “a party who has not participated in the arbitration and who has not made an application to compel arbitration may apply to stay arbitration on the grounds that: (1) [n]o valid agreement to submit to arbitration was made; (2) [t]he agreement to arbitrate was not complied with; or (3) [t]he arbitration is barred by limitation of time.” (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 9-9-6 (b). Further, when served with a demand for arbitration, the served party must apply for a stay of arbitration within 30 days of service, or “he will thereafter be precluded from denying the validity of the agreement.” OCGA § 9-9-6 (d).