Mike Newman, Author at Arkansas Civ Pro

Jan. 2015 Nonparty Fault Civil Procedure Rule Changes

On August 7, 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion (2014 Ark. 340) making changes to Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure 9, 49, and 52.

The changes implement procedural requirements for asserting a claim of nonparty fault. They went into effect January 1, 2015.

These changes stemmed from work of the Special Task Force on Practice and Procedure in Civil Cases. (You can read about the Special Task Force work and their interim report in the per curiam opinion In Re Special Task Force on Practice and Procedure in Civil Cases, 2014 Ark. 5, at this pdf link.)

Rule 9 Nonparty Fault Provisions

Rule 9 now has a part (h) which contains the procedural requirements for a party wanting to have an allocation of fault made to a nonparty.

Rule 9(h) requires notice of the nonparty fault assertion be given in an initial responsive pleading if the basis for the nonparty fault is known then, or in an amended or supplemental pleading (subject to the conditions of Rule 15) after the party discovers the information.
Continue reading Jan. 2015 Nonparty Fault Civil Procedure Rule Changes

July 2014 Arkansas Civil Procedure Rule Changes

Effective July 1, 2014, a number of changes were made to Arkansas civil procedure rules.

The changes were announced by the Supreme Court of Arkansas in a per curium opinion (2014 Ark. 119) issued on March 13, 2014.

Here are some of the changes:

Ark.R.Civ.P. 4(i) – Service Time Extensions

Subparagraph (i) of Arkansas Civil Procedure Rule 4 has been modified to clarify that the circuit court may extend the time for service either within the original 120 days or within the time period allowed by an earlier time extension.

Ark.R.App.P.-Civ. 2(f)– Interlocutory Appeal of Protective Order Denial

Subparagraph (f) of Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure-Civil 2 has been expanded to give the Arkansas Supreme Court discretionary authority to hear an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion for protective order when the basis of the request is to protect a privilege.

Continue reading July 2014 Arkansas Civil Procedure Rule Changes

Appeal Rule 1.8 Reminder: Electronic Copies Not Optional

A few weeks ago, the Administrative Offices of the Court sent out an email regarding new Rule 1.8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. It reminds appeals council that, even though the rule language refers to “courtesy copies,” the new rule requires sending electronic copies. It is not optional.

The email also notes that the electronic copy cannot be sent by email, at this time.

New Appellate Rule Requires “Courtesy” Electronic Briefs

As a step toward the eventual transition to electronic appellate brief filing, the Arkansas Supreme Court last week announced a new rule that will mandate sending courtesy electronic copies of briefs along with the paper documents.

Rule 1.8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals requires the submission of pdf copies of briefs to the Clerk. It does not alter the existing requirement of filing paper copies of briefs and other appellate documents.

The rule also specifies a file-naming convention to be followed for the pdf files.

Rule 1.8 goes into effect August 1, 2013.

2013 Ark. 256 (pdf).

[Update 09-05-2013: This has been updated to note that the new rule requires sending the electronic copies.]

SCOA: Abandoned Client Must Show Diligence

Case: The Entertainer, Inc. v. Duffy, 2012 Ark. 202, decided on May 10, 2012.

Main Issue

Under what circumstances may a defendant get a default judgment set aside when the default is allegedly the result of the defendant being abandoned by his attorney?

Background

This case originated as a personal injury action brought by Cory Duffy, the patron of a drinking establishment operated by The Entertainer, Inc. (“TEI”) and Charles Wells. Duffy sought damages against TEI and Wells after he was shot twice while waiting outside the business for a taxi.

Duffy filed his suit on November 30, 2009. Over the next 13 months, both defendants ended up in default. Continue reading SCOA: Abandoned Client Must Show Diligence