Almeida v. Metal Studs, Inc., 2017 Ark. App. 162

DCI sued Almeida in 2013, alleging breach of a confidentiality/noncompetition agreement; a preliminary injunction issued and remained in effect pending further order or until July 15, 2015.
After discovery disputes, the circuit court ordered discovery completed and set a follow-up hearing on July 16, 2015 to address remaining discovery and a contempt motion.
At the July 16 hearing (on the record, with parties present) the court orally continued the matter and announced a new hearing date of August 28, 2015 and extended the preliminary injunction to August 31.
Almeida’s counsel moved to continue the August 28 hearing, arguing no written order memorialized the July 16 setting; the motion was denied and Almeida did not appear on August 28.
The court imposed monetary sanctions against Almeida ($3,500 attorney’s fees plus $1,198 travel/hotel for a witness) based on his nonappearance, later reduced to a written order entered September 9, 2015; Almeida appealed arguing the oral setting was not an effective written order under Ark. R. Civ. P. 58 and Administrative Order No. 2.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an oral, on-the-record rescheduling of a hearing (with parties present) is ineffective under Rule 58/Administrative Order No. 2 so sanctions for nonappearance cannot stand	Almeida: Oral pronouncement was not a written, entered order under Rule 58; because no written order existed, he could not be sanctioned for violating it	DCI: Oral on-the-record setting with counsel and client present was sufficient to compel attendance; no separate written order was required	Court: Affirmed sanctions. An on-the-record, explicit rescheduling made in open court with parties present need not be reduced to a separate written order to be effective in compelling attendance
Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review the sanction order as final and appealable	Almeida: (implicit) proceeded with appeal from sanctions order	Dissent (Gruber, C.J.): The sanctions were an interim, non-final action (no contempt adjudication and hearing continued); without a Rule 54(b) certificate, the order is nonappealable and appellate court lacks jurisdiction	Majority: Did not reverse on jurisdictional grounds; treated the merits and affirmed the sanctions (dissent would have dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)

Exigence, LLC v. Baylark, 367 S.W.3d 550 (Ark. 2010) (an oral order that is not timely entered as a written order under Rule 58/Administrative Order No. 2 cannot serve as a basis for sanctions when entry timing makes compliance impossible)
Hankook Tire Co. v. Philpot, 499 S.W.3d 250 (Ark. App. 2016) (orders assessing fees or sanctions may be nonfinal; appellate jurisdiction requires a final order or a proper Rule 54(b) certificate)