Jonesboro Healthcare Center, LLC v. Eaton-Moery Environmental Services, Inc.
2011 Ark. 501
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Delta Environmental sued Jonesboro Healthcare in Craighead County District Court on August 6, 2010 for $26,460.38, misfiling a contract claim in district court beyond its jurisdiction.
- Seven days later, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, after Delta acknowledged the mistake and requested dismissal without prejudice.
- Delta Environmental filed an identical complaint in circuit court on the same day the district court dismissal was entered, August 13, 2010.
- Jonesboro Healthcare answered in circuit court on August 24, 2010 and later moved, on December 15, 2010, to dismiss with prejudice under Rule 41(b) for a prior perceived voluntary nonsuit.
- The circuit court granted the motion on February 10, 2011, dismissing Delta’s complaint without prejudice, with a subsequent 54(b) certification, which Jonesboro timely appealed.
- The key issue is whether the district court’s lack-of-subject-matter-jurisdiction dismissal counts as one of the two dismissals contemplated by Rule 41(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court's lack-of-subject-matter-jurisdiction dismissal triggers Rule 41(b). | Jonesboro Healthcare: yes, counts as a dismissal. | Delta Environmental: no, not a Rule 41(b) dismissal. | No; not trigger under Rule 41(b). |
| Whether a lack-of-subject-matter-jurisdiction dismissal is an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(b). | Dismissal should count as adjudication on the merits. | Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction cannot be merits adjudication. | Not an adjudication on the merits. |
| Whether literal interpretation of Rule 41(b) would yield absurd results and should be tempered by purpose. | Plain-language reading supports two-dismissal rule application. | Plain-language reading would produce harsh results; interpret to serve purpose. | Rule 41(b) not applied literally to include lack-of-jurisdiction dismissals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bakker v. Ralston, 326 Ark. 575, 932 S.W.2d 325 (1996) (failure to obtain service treated as Rule 41(b) involuntary dismissal)
- Carton v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 295 Ark. 126, 747 S.W.2d 93 (1988) (context for two-dismissal rule applicability)
- Washington v. Smith, 340 Ark. 460, 10 S.W.3d 877 (2000) (purpose of two-dismissal rule; avoid harassment and delays)
- Cory v. Mark Twain Life Ins. Corp., 286 Ark. 20, 688 S.W.2d 934 (1985) (purpose of two-dismissal rule; docket management)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Griffin Constr. Co., 338 Ark. 289, 993 S.W.2d 485 (1999) (docket management and two-dismissal policy)