Almeida v. Metal Studs, Inc., 2016 Ark. App. 602

DCI sued Almeida in July 2013, alleging violations of a confidentiality/noncompetition agreement; a preliminary injunction was entered on Aug. 15, 2013, effective immediately and lasting until July 15, 2015 unless superseded.
Little activity occurred until discovery in 2014–2015; DCI moved for contempt on Jan. 26, 2015, alleging willful violation of the injunction.
The court ordered additional discovery and set a July 16, 2015 hearing; the court continued unresolved matters and announced in open court a follow-up hearing for Aug. 28, 2015, and extended the injunction to Aug. 31.
Almeida’s counsel moved to continue the Aug. 28 hearing, arguing no written order memorialized the July 16 docket-call setting and that they first learned of the hearing late.
Almeida did not appear on Aug. 28; the court orally sanctioned him $3,500 in attorney’s fees and awarded travel/hotel costs for a witness; a written order memorializing the monetary sanctions was entered Sept. 9, 2015.
Almeida appealed the sanctions; the Court of Appeals raised sua sponte the threshold issue of appealability (final, appealable contempt order) and dismissed the appeal without prejudice because the sanctions order did not constitute a contempt order or a final appealable decision.

Issue	Almeida's Argument	DCI's Argument	Held
Whether the monetary sanction constitutes an appealable civil or criminal contempt order under Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 2(a)(13)	The July 16 setting was not reduced to a written order; Rule 58 requires a written order to be effective, so he cannot be sanctioned on an unwritten docket-call setting	The court’s oral docket-call continuance was sufficient; Almeida heard the court set the date and therefore was properly sanctioned for failing to appear	Court: No actual finding of contempt was made; the sanction is not a contempt order and thus not a final, appealable order; appeal dismissed without prejudice
Whether the court’s sanction—though monetary—amounts to a final disposition of a contempt matter	The lack of explicit contempt finding means there is no appealable contempt disposition	The sanction/punishment can be justified by the court’s oral directive and transcript evidence	Court: Because the record contains no contempt finding, the monetary award is analogous to a noncontempt sanction (not final/appealable)

Kowalski v. Rose Drugs of Dardanelle, Inc., 357 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. 2009) (court may raise sua sponte whether an order is final and appealable)