Order

In this civil action, the trial court entered an order on October 30, 2017, denying various parties' motions to strike several pleadings, for entry of default judgment, and for judgment on the pleadings.1 In the October 30 order, the court also: (i) determined that defendants David Sundy and Tim Sundy had properly asserted a counterclaim against the plaintiff, but had not properly added several proposed third-party defendants; (ii) granted the Sundys' request to add several parties as defendants in counterclaim; (iii) ordered two of the added defendants in counterclaim to answer the counterclaim; and (iv) ordered all parties to use a new case caption included in the order.2 The Sundys, proceeding pro se, have filed an application for discretionary review in this Court, seeking to appeal the October 30 order. We lack jurisdiction.

1. The order that the Sundys seek to appeal is a non-final order, leaving the case pending before the trial court. Consequently, pretermitting whether October 30 order is subject to the discretionary appeal procedures, the Sundys were required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures — including obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court — to obtain appellate review.3 See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga.App. 435, 435 (383 S.E.2d 906) (1989). Their failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this application, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 S.E.2d 213) (1996); Boyd, 191 Ga. App. at 435.

2. Earlier this year, the Sundys filed two discretionary applications and one direct appeal seeking review of interlocutory trial court orders in the same underlying action (case no. 2015CV1366), each of which we dismissed for failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures. See Tim Sundy et al. v. Friendship Pavilion Acquisition Company, LLC et al., No. A18A0290 (Oct. 3, 2017); David Sundy et al. v. Friendship Pavilion Acquisition Company, LLC et al., No. A17D0525 (July 17, 2017); David Sundy v. Martha C. Christian, Judge et al., No. A17D0476 (June 21, 2017).4 This Court is empowered to impose sanctions upon parties who file frivolous direct appeals and applications to appeal. See Court of Appeals Rule 7 (e) (2). Given the Sundys' history of repeatedly failing to follow the required procedures to seek appellate review of interlocutory rulings, we find the instant application to be frivolous. We caution the Sundys that any future frivolous filings in this Court may result in the imposition of sanctions.