Mack v. Union Pacific Railroad
2012 Ark. App. 115
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mack appeals a Jefferson County Circuit Court order dismissing his Arkansas complaint with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
- Mack initially filed a FELA action in Texas (July 9, 2008); it was dismissed in Texas after Mack moved to dismiss (not a jury verdict).
- Mack refiled the action against Union Pacific in Arkansas (Dec. 4, 2009); Union Pacific answered and moved to dismiss for defective summons.
- The Arkansas trial court dismissed based on Rule 4(i) for defective service, then, sua sponte, ordered dismissal with prejudice, citing Rule 41(a).
- A second order (Mar. 22, 2011) granted Union Pacific’s motion to dismiss with prejudice; Mack appealed challenging the application of Rule 41(a) and Rule 41(b).
- This court reviews de novo when construing rules; holds Rule 41(b) governs involuntary dismissals and results in prejudice when prior nonsuit occurred in a previous forum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 41(a) or Rule 41(b) controlled the dismissal | Mack argues Rule 41(a) applies due to a written stipulation in Texas. | Union Pacific contends one dismissal was by defendant’s motion, so Rule 41(a) does not apply. | Rule 41(a) does not apply; involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) governs. |
| Whether the second Arkansas dismissal with prejudice was proper under Rule 41(b) | Mack claims no prior relevant dismissal should trigger Rule 41(b). | Union Pacific relies on Mack’s prior nonsuit in Texas and Rule 41(b)’s prejudice rule. | Second dismissal with prejudice affirmed under Rule 41(b) due to prior Texas nonsuit. |
| Whether Smith v. Washington is controlling to this Rule 41(b) scenario | Smith suggests joint stipulation can defeat two-dismissal rule, potentially barring later claims. | Smith is inapplicable because there was no joint stipulation in Texas; Rule 41(b) has no waiver. | Smith is inapplicable; does not affect Rule 41(b) analysis. |
| What standard of review applies to Rule 41 interpretations | N/A | N/A | De novo review applied to interpreting the court rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jonesboro Healthcare Center, LLC v. Eatan-Moery Environmental Services, Inc., 2011 Ark. 501, 385 S.W.3d 797 (Ark. 2011) (construction of Rule 41; de novo review for court rules)
- Trusclair v. McGowan Working Partners, 2009 Ark. 203, 306 S.W.3d 428 (Ark. 2009) (Rule 41(b) involuntary dismissal with prejudice when prior nonsuit)
- Smith v. Sidney Moncrief Pontiac, Buick, GMC Co., 353 Ark. 701, 120 S.W.3d 525 (Ark. 2003) (Rule 41(b) and prejudice under prior dismissals; reliance limited)
- Bakker v. Ralston, 326 Ark. 575, 932 S.W.2d 325 (Ark. 1996) (failure to timely serve as Rule 41(b) basis for prejudice)
- Carton v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 295 Ark. 126, 747 S.W.2d 93 (Ark. 1988) (two-dismissal rule context; applicability when one dismissal is by defendant)
- Smith v. Washington, 340 Ark. 460, 10 S.W.3d 877 (Ark. 2000) (joint stipulation not controlling for Rule 41(b) scenario)