Global Economic Resources, Inc. v. Swaminathan, 389 S.W.3d 631

Global filed breach-of-contract suit on Nov. 17, 2008 against Swaminathan, Melpakkam (d/b/a Sabare SCM Solution, Inc.).
An amended complaint added Sabare SCM Solution, Inc. (a Georgia corporation) and asserted Rule 41 dismissal against the individual defendants.
The trial court dismissed Sabare SCM Solution for lack of personal jurisdiction on June 17, 2009.
Global appealed that dismissal but the court dismissed the first appeal for lack of a final order.
Global later filed a second amended complaint on Feb. 17, 2010 and then sought to withdraw its Rule 41 motion; Sabare SCM Solution moved to strike on Mar. 9, 2010.
On March 11, 2010, the trial court entered a final order dismissing all named and unserved defendants; Global did not timely appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the March 11, 2010 final order was a final, appealable judgment	Global argues the order dismissed all defendants and was final	Defendants argue no timely appeal from March 11, 2010 order	Yes; March 11, 2010 order was final and appealable
Whether Rule 4(b) postjudgment motion extended the appeal deadline	Rule 4(b) motion to amend extended time if timely	Motion untimely filed and thus did not extend time	No extension; timely appeal not filed within 30 days
Whether Rule 60(a) could revive or extend jurisdiction after 90 days	Rule 60(a) could amend to prevent miscarriage	Rule 60(a) not applicable after 90 days; jurisdiction lost	Rule 60(a) relief unavailable; jurisdiction not revived
Whether Rule 54(b)(5) affected finality of the dismissal			Rule 54(b)(5) dismissal of unserved defendants supported finality of March 11, 2010 order

Rossi v. Rossi, 319 Ark. 373, 892 S.W.2d 246 (1995) (timeliness requires timely notice of appeal)
Jordan v. Circuit Court of Lee County, 366 Ark. 326, 235 S.W.3d 487 (2006) (Rule 60(a) jurisdiction-limitation after 90 days)