Elmore v. Gemini Capital Group, LLC
2017 Ark. App. 360
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Gemini Capital Group, LLC bought an unpaid car loan owed by Emmett Elmore and Jennifer Harris and sued in Pulaski County District Court to collect.
- Elmore and Harris answered and asserted a class-action counterclaim in district court alleging unjust enrichment, ADTPA violations, and FDCPA/AFDCPA violations based on Gemini’s alleged purchase of time-barred debt and filing of phantom payment reports.
- Because relief sought exceeded district-court jurisdiction, Elmore and Harris moved to transfer the counterclaim to circuit court under Ark. Dist. Ct. R. 7(c).
- Gemini voluntarily dismissed its original complaint before the transfer hearing; the district court transferred the counterclaim to circuit court on August 27, 2015.
- Months later, Gemini moved in circuit court to set aside the transfer (arguing the counterclaims were permissive under Rule 7(d) and thus should have been disregarded) and alternatively sought dismissal; the circuit court set aside the transfer and dismissed the counterclaim without prejudice.
- The circuit court later entered an amended order containing a purported Rule 54(b) certificate; appellants appealed, but the Court of Appeals addressed appellate jurisdiction first.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit-court dismissal was a final, appealable order | Elmore/Harris: dismissal is final for purposes of appeal because it conclusively disposes of claims | Gemini: dismissal without prejudice is not a final adjudication; alternatively, transfer was improper so dismissal appropriate | Dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction: dismissal without prejudice is not final |
| Whether Rule 54(b) certification made the order appealable | Elmore/Harris: the later Rule 54(b) certificate supports immediate appeal | Gemini: the certificate is insufficient/no real explanation needed | Rule 54(b) statement was deficient—court must make specific factual findings of hardship/injustice to permit immediate appeal |
| Whether district court erred in transferring counterclaims to circuit court under Dist. Ct. R. 7(c)/(d) | Elmore/Harris: counterclaims were compulsory, so transfer was proper | Gemini: counterclaims were permissive and should have been disregarded under Rule 7(d) | Court did not reach merits due to lack of appellate jurisdiction |
| Whether voluntary nonsuit by plaintiff affects finality | Elmore/Harris: (implicit) transfer and counterclaims stand despite nonsuit | Gemini: voluntary nonsuit left only counterclaims and dismissal without prejudice is nonfinal | Court: voluntary nonsuit plus dismissal without prejudice produces nonfinal order |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobs v. Collison, 505 S.W.3d 254 (Ark. App. 2016) (appellate courts may raise lack of jurisdiction sua sponte when finality is in question)
- Beverly Enterprises–Ark., Inc. v. Hillier, 14 S.W.3d 487 (Ark. 2000) (final, appealable order must terminate action and conclude rights to the matter in controversy)
- Gray v. White River Health Sys., Inc., 483 S.W.3d 293 (Ark. 2016) (Rule 54(b) certification must include specific factual findings showing danger of hardship or injustice from delay)