Shane Eisman v. Elizabeth Pornjaroen ( 2022 )

Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 492ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-22-9
SHANE EISMAN Opinion Delivered November 30, 2022
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
APPELLANT FORT SMITH DISTRICT
[NO. 66FCV-18-735]
V.
HONORABLE DIANNA HEWITT
ELIZABETH PORNJAROEN
LADD, JUDGE
APPELLEE
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Shane Eisman appeals from the September 9, 2021, order entered by the
Sebastian County Circuit Court finding that he owed appellee Elizabeth Pornjaroen
$52,000. Appellant argues that the circuit court erred by authenticating text messages
submitted during the hearing. We cannot address the merits of this appeal at this time
because there is not a final, appealable order.
On June 7, 2018, appellee and Suchada Chaikun filed a complaint against appellant
contending that he owed them a total of $52,000 based on loans they had made to him
between May and August 2016. Appellant filed an answer on July 25, denying the material
allegations of the complaint. On September 4, appellee filed an amended complaint, again
alleging that appellant owed her $52,000. Chaikun’s name was not on the amended
complaint. Appellant filed an answer to the amended complaint on October 9, denying the
material allegations. The heading on appellant’s answer included both appellee’s and
Chaikun’s names. In an order filed on May 15, 2019, the case was transferred to another
division. This order also contained the names of both plaintiffs. Appellant subsequently
retained new counsel and filed another answer to the amended complaint on September 23
denying the material allegations thereof. Both plaintiffs were listed in this answer. All
motions and correspondence filed by appellee contained only her name. The circuit court’s
orders in response to the documents also named only appellee as the plaintiff. In the April
30, 2020, continuance motion filed by appellant, only appellee was listed in the heading. A
hearing took place on August 18, 2021. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court
took the matter under advisement. The circuit court filed a letter opinion on August 20,
awarding appellee $52,000 against appellant. The order was filed on September 9.
Appellant filed his notice of appeal on October 8.
The law concerning appealable orders is clear. Rule 2(a)(1) of the Arkansas Rules of
Appellate Procedure–Civil provides that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment
or decree entered by the circuit court. Rule 54(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that when more than one claim for relief is presented in an action or when multiple
parties are involved, an order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not a final, appealable order. 1 Under Rule 54(b),
1
See also S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Easter, 369 Ark. 101, 251 S.W.3d 251 (2007).
2
the circuit court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than
all the claims or parties by making an express determination, supported by specific factual
findings, that there is no just reason for delaying an appeal. 2 Without this required
certification, an order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities
of fewer than all the parties does not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties. 3
The record on appeal fails to reflect that Chaikun’s interest in the litigation has been
formally resolved by the circuit court.4 Absent certification under Rule 54(b), any judgment
that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the
parties will not terminate the action.5 No certification was made in this case. Because
appellant is appealing from an order that is not final and there is no Rule 54(b) certification,
his appeal is dismissed without prejudice.
Dismissed without prejudice.
KLAPPENBACH and GRUBER, JJ., agree.
Gean, Gean & Gean, by: Roy Gean III, for appellant.
Lisa-Marie Norris, for appellee.
2
See Kowalski v. Rose Drugs of Dardanelle, Inc., 2009 Ark. 524, 357 S.W.3d 432.
3
See Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(2).
4
There is no indication that Chaikun was dismissed from the case by any order or
that appellee sought to have her removed.
5
See Sammons v. SEECO, Inc., 2011 Ark. App. 436 (holding that a formal disposition
of a named plaintiff’s claims is necessary for a final, appealable order).
3