Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_23-cv-04029/USCOURTS-arwd-4_23-cv-04029-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Replevin &amp; Conversion

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

 

ANTOINETTE LEE PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 4:23-cv-04029 

 

SUSTAINABLE FORESTS, LLC. AND

BLUE SKY TIMBER PROPRTIES, LLC DEFENDANTS

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. ECF No. 35. 

Plaintiff has responded to the Motion. ECF No. 44. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion 

For Leave to Amend Complaint. ECF No. 39. Defendants have filed their Response in opposition. 

ECF No. 42. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable 

Susan O. Hickey referred these Motions to this Court for the purpose of making a report and 

recommendation. In accordance with that referral, this Court enters the following report and 

recommendation. 

1. Background: 

On March 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed her pro se Complaint against Defendants Sustainable 

Forests and Blue Sky Timber (“Blue Sky”). ECF No. 2. In her original Complaint here, Plaintiff 

claims the Defendants violated federal law by seizing lands granted to her forebearers by the 

United States. She also claims Defendant Sustainable Forest seized the land by adverse possession 

in 1967. Plaintiff claims this seizure was a violation of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The original Complaint in the instant matter is similar to a prior complaint in which Plaintiff raised 

nearly identical factual claims. The prior case was dismissed with prejudice. See Lee v. ARKLA 

Case 4:23-cv-04029-SOH Document 45 Filed 01/25/24 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

Chemical Corp. et al., 4:22-cv-04102. Separate Defendant Sustainable Forests was one of the 

named Defendants in that prior complaint. Id. 

On May 16, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 6. This Amended 

Complaint is based on the exact same factual allegations as the Original Complaint. However, 

Plaintiff in her Amended Complaint makes claims of violation of Arkansas law (trespass and 

destruction of property of another) and asserts diversity jurisdiction rather than federal question 

jurisdiction. Plaintiff never attempted to serve the Amended Complaint on either Defendant. 

On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Application for Entry of Default against the Defendants. 

ECF No. 9. On July 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Default against Defendants. 

ECF No. 11. Also, on July 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enter Default Judgment against 

Defendants. ECF No. 12. With these multiple motions, Plaintiff urged the Court to enter a default 

and default judgment against the Defendants based upon Defendants failure to answer the Original 

Complaint. Id.

On September 6, 2023, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of Default,

Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default by Court, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Enter Default Judgment. 

ECF No. 19. This Court denied Plaintiff’s Motions based upon improper service and due to the 

effect of filing an Amended Complaint. Id. However, because Plaintiff was proceeding pro se

and explained to the Court why she made no attempt to serve the Amended Complaint, the Court 

found good cause existed to excuse the failure to serve the Amended Complaint and Plaintiff was 

allowed to serve the Amended Complaint within forty-five (45) days of that Order. Id.

On November 28, 2023, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). ECF No. 35. Defendants seek to dismiss the 

Amended Complaint on several grounds including: (1) Failure to perfect proper service on 

Defendant Blue Sky, (2) Plaintiff’s claims are barred by res judicata, (3) Plaintiff’s lack of 

Case 4:23-cv-04029-SOH Document 45 Filed 01/25/24 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:

<pageID>
3 

standing to bring this suit, (4) Plaintiff’s claims are barred by statute of limitations, and (5) Plaintiff 

fails to plausibly allege elements of her claim. Id. 

On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. ECF No. 

37. On December 11, 2023, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion because Plaintiff’s proposed 

Amended Complaint showed an additional twenty-two (22) Plaintiffs without counsel being added 

to this matter, and because Plaintiff was proceeding pro se she was not allowed to represent these 

other parties. ECF No. 38. On the same day as this Order, Plaintiff filed a subsequent Motion to 

Amend Complaint. ECF No. 39. This proposed Complaint was identical to the one Plaintiff 

proposed earlier, but the additional twenty-two (22) Plaintiffs were removed. Defendants are 

opposed to Plaintiff’s request to file yet another Amended Complaint. ECF No. 42. 

 The Court will consider, first, the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and second, 

the Motion For Leave to Amend Complaint. 

2. Discussion:

A. Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint 

 As previously stated, Defendants seek to dismiss the Amended Complaint on several 

grounds including: (1) Failure to perfect proper service on Defendant Blue Sky, (2) Plaintiff’s 

claims are barred by res judicata, (3) Plaintiff’s lack of standing to bring this suit, (4) Plaintiff’s 

claims are barred by statute of limitations, and (5) Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege elements of her 

claim. ECF No. 35. Because the Court finds in favor of Defendants on the first four grounds, the 

Court will not address whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged elements of her claim.

i. Improper Service of Defendant Blue Sky

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 provides that a plaintiff may serve a corporation in one 

of two ways. First, a plaintiff may use any method of service allowed in the state where the district 

court is located or where service is made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h)(1), 4(e)(1). Second, a plaintiff may 

Case 4:23-cv-04029-SOH Document 45 Filed 01/25/24 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:

<pageID>
4 

effect service “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing 

or general agent, or any other agent authorized ... to receive service of process and—if the agent 

is one authorized by statute and the statute so requires—by also mailing a copy of each to the 

defendant.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h)(1). 

 According to Defendant, the entity on which Plaintiff purported to perfect service was not 

the registered agent for Blue Sky and did not exist. ECF No. 35-5. Additionally, Plaintiff was 

notified of this on October 23, 2023, via a rejection letter. Id. Plaintiff acknowledged in her 

Response that she served an entity known as the agent for International Paper Company who 

Plaintiff alleges is the managing agent or general agent for Defendant Blue Sky. ECF No. 44. 

Plaintiff provides no basis or evidence to support the claim that International Paper Company is a 

proper party to receive service of process on behalf of Defendant Blue Sky.0F

1

Plaintiff has failed to perfect service of her Amended Complaint on Blue Sky within the 

ninety (90) days allotted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and the forty-five (45) day 

extended period allowed by Order of this Court on September 6, 2023. ECF No. 19. 

Based upon the forgoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to perfect service of process 

on Defendant Blue Sky and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed as to Defendant 

Blue Sky. 

ii. Res Judicata 

When the affirmative defense of res judicata is raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule 

12(b)(6), the Court may dismiss a case on that basis if the doctrine's applicability “is apparent on 

1

 It should be noted Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of Default, Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default by 

Court and Plaintiff’s Motion to Enter Default Judgment were denied by this Court, in part, based upon 

improper service. ECF No. 19. Additionally, Plaintiff was made aware at that time that Defendant Blue 

Sky filed Articles of Withdrawal with the Arkansas Secretary of State on April 4, 2013, and appointed the 

Secretary of State as its agent for service of process for any action arising during the time it was 

authorized to transact business in the State. 

Case 4:23-cv-04029-SOH Document 45 Filed 01/25/24 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:

<pageID>
5

the face of the complaint,” including “public records and materials embraced by the complaint, 

and materials attached to the complaint.” See C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Lobrano, 695 

F.3d 758, 763-64 (8th Cir. 2012)(internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “The 

law of the forum that rendered the first judgment controls the res judicata analysis.” See id. at 

764 (quoting Laase v. Cnty. of Isanti, 638 F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2011) ). Thus, this Court must 

apply the res judicata laws of Arkansas. 

Under Arkansas law, res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars relitigation of a prior claim

when: (1) The first suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits; (2) the first suit was based upon 

proper jurisdiction; (3) the first suit was fully contested in good faith; (4) both suits involve the 

same claim or cause of action; and (5) both suits involve the same parties or their privies. Jayel 

Corp. v. Cochran, 365 Ark. 175, 178 234 S.W.3d 278, 281 (2006). “Res judicata bars not only 

the relitigation of claims that were actually litigated in the first suit, but also those that could have 

been litigated.” Id. Where a case is based on the same events as the subject matter of a previous 

lawsuit, res judicata will apply even if the subsequent lawsuit raises new legal issues and seeks 

additional remedies. Swofford v. Stafford, 295 Ark. 433, 748 S.W.2d 660 (1988).

As stated before, on March 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed her pro se Complaint against Defendants 

Sustainable Forests and Blue Sky. ECF No. 2. The Complaint here is based on the same 

occurrence as a prior complaint filed by Plaintiff in which the Plaintiff raised nearly identical 

factual claims. That prior case was dismissed with prejudice. See Lee v. ARKLA Chemical Corp. 

et al., 4:22-cv-04102.1F

2

 Defendant Sustainable Forests was a Defendant in that case. Id. 

On May 16, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 6. This Amended 

Complaint is based on the exact same factual allegations as the Original Complaint. However, 

2 The basis for dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint was the lack of federal question jurisdiction and claims

being barred by the applicable statute of limitations as set forth in Magistrate Judge Barry A. Bryant’s 

Report and Recommendation, which the District Court adopted in toto. 

Case 4:23-cv-04029-SOH Document 45 Filed 01/25/24 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:

<pageID>
6

Plaintiff in her Amended Complaint makes claims of violation of Arkansas law and asserts 

diversity jurisdiction rather than federal question jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff's previous lawsuit in Lee v. ARKLA Chemical Corp was filed against, among 

others, Defendant Sustainable Forests and as in the instant lawsuit, involved the same occurrence 

and set of claims. The allegations generally allege that the Defendants have illegally sold or 

otherwise conveyed real property that belongs to her. Plaintiff makes claims that she is the rightful 

owner of the real property at issue because the property was conveyed to her ancestors through a 

land patent, and the language of the land patent states that the land is granted to the grantee, his 

heirs, or assignees forever. Plaintiff's previous lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice after Plaintiff 

had a fair and full opportunity to litigate her claims. See Francis v. Francis, 343 Ark. 104, 112, 

31 S.W.3d 841, 846 (2000) (“Dismissal with prejudice is as conclusive of the rights of the parties 

as if there were an adverse judgment as to the plaintiff after a trial.”).

Accordingly, res judicata bars Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit as to Defendant Sustainable 

Forests. Although Defendant Blue Sky was not a party in Plaintiff’s previous lawsuit, privity of 

parties within the meaning of res judicata exists “when two parties are so identified with one 

another that they represent the same legal right.” Crockett v. C.A.G. Invs., Inc., 2011 Ark. 208, 

381 S.W.3d 793, 799 (2011).2F

3

 Plaintiff herself alleges that Defendants are in the same chain of 

title, stating that Sustainable Forests transferred the property to Blue Sky. ECF No. 6, Pg. 5. This 

would place Blue Sky in privity with Sustainable Forests and would bar Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit 

as to Defendant Blue Sky. Res judicata bars any claim here against Defendant Blue Sky.

3 Although Blue Sky was not a named Defendant in the Lee v. ARKLA Chemical Corp matter, they were 

specifically mentioned in the Complaint as a Grantee of a land sale from the Grantor Sustainable Forests. 

See Lee v. ARKLA Chemical Corp. et al., 4:22-cv-04102, ECF No. 7, Pgs. 6-8.

Case 4:23-cv-04029-SOH Document 45 Filed 01/25/24 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:

<pageID>
7 

iii. Plaintiff’s Standing to Bring Lawsuit

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure challenges 

the court's subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. See Johnson v. United States, 534 F.3d 958, 

964 (8th Cir. 2008). Because standing is a jurisdictional question, a motion to dismiss 

for lack of standing is properly analyzed under Rule 12(b)(1). See Disability Support All. v. 

Heartwood Enters., LLC, 885 F.3d 543, 547 (8th Cir. 2018). A challenge to jurisdiction 

under Rule 12(b)(1) may proceed in one of two ways: as a facial challenge or as a factual 

challenge. Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 n.6 (8th Cir. 1990). In a facial attack, the 

court restricts itself to the face of the pleadings, and the non-moving party receives the same 

protections as it would defending against a motion brought under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. In a factual 

attack, the court may consider matters outside the pleadings, and the non-movant does not have 

the benefit of the 12(b)(6) protections. Id. In this case, Defendants are making a factual attack to 

Plaintiff’s standing. 

In this matter, Plaintiff makes allegations that the Defendants have illegally sold or 

otherwise conveyed real property that belongs to her because of being an heir to Cupe Shepherd, 

her second great grandfather. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff makes claims that she is the rightful owner of 

the real property at issue because the property was conveyed to her ancestors through a land patent, 

and the language of the land patent states that the land is granted to the grantee, his heirs, or

assignees forever. Id.

In making this claim, Plaintiff fails to show or claim she is the exclusive heir of Cupe 

Shepherd and fails to establish her heirship has been established by any proceeding or court ruling. 

There is also an absence of evidence that Plaintiff has been appointed as executor, administrator, 

or in some other capacity as the personal representative of the Estate of Cupe Shepherd. Plaintiff 

does not even present evidence of when Cupe Sheperd died, where he died, or whether he died 

Case 4:23-cv-04029-SOH Document 45 Filed 01/25/24 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:

<pageID>
8 

intestate or not. Based on this, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action, and her Amended 

Complaint should be dismissed. 

iv. Claims Barred by Statute of Limitations 

Defendants fourth basis of dismissal of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is based upon the 

claims being barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Based on the facts as pled in the 

Amended Complaint, any cause of action accruing to Plaintiff arose at least by April 10, 2003, 

when Plaintiff claims Defendant Sustainable Forests transferred ownership rights to Blue Sky. 

ECF No. 6, p. 5.3F

4

 

Any claim based on the execution of the documents outlined in the Amended Complaint 

is barred by Arkansas’s three-year statute of limitations for fraud. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-

105(1) (2020). These documents were all filed of public record over twenty years ago in 2003. 

As such, they were constructive notice to everyone from the time they were filed. Ark. Code Ann. 

§14-15-404(a)(1). Plaintiff has supplied no demonstration that limitations tolling should apply for 

any reason. 

Further, the statute of limitations for trespass and claims of injuring, destroying or carrying 

away property of others is three years from occurrence. Id. at §16-56-105(4), (6). In an action to 

recover land, tenements, or hereditaments, the statute of limitations is 7 years. Id. at §18-61-

101(a). 

A defendant may raise the affirmative defense of statute of limitations via 

a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when the facts that give rise to the defense are clear from the face of 

4 The Court is giving Plaintiff the most generous date for the accrual of this cause of action. It should be 

noted that the events giving rise to this dispute date back to documents from the 1890’s. ECF No. 6, p. 9. 

Plaintiff also alleges Defendant Sustainable Forests began to trespass on the land in issue on January 1, 

1967. ECF No. 6, p. 5. 

Case 4:23-cv-04029-SOH Document 45 Filed 01/25/24 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:

<pageID>
9 

the complaint. Smith–Haynie v. District of Columbia, 155 F.3d 575, 578 (D.C.Cir.1998). 

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s claims also are time-barred and should be dismissed.

B. Motion For Leave to Amend Complaint

Following the filing of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, on December 6, 2023, Plaintiff 

filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. ECF No. 37. This Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion 

because Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint showed an additional twenty-two (22) Plaintiffs 

without counsel being added to this matter, and because Plaintiff was proceeding pro se she was 

not allowed to represent these other parties. ECF No. 38. On the same day that motion was 

denied, Plaintiff filed a subsequent Motion to Amend Complaint. ECF No. 39. This proposed 

Complaint was identical to the one Plaintiff proposed earlier, but the additional twenty-two (22) 

Plaintiffs were removed. Id. 

Defendants are opposed to Plaintiff’s request to file yet another Amended Complaint. ECF 

No. 42. Defendants argue the motion should be denied based on undue delay, undue prejudice and 

futility. Id. Because this Court finds allowing this Amended Complaint would be futile, the court 

will only address this ground for denial. 

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amended pleadings. Rule 15(a) 

provides in pertinent part: 

(1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a 

matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one 

to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive 

pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), 

whichever is earlier.

(2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with 

the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely 

give leave when justice so requires.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). 

 

Case 4:23-cv-04029-SOH Document 45 Filed 01/25/24 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:

<pageID>
10

Although leave to amend is to be freely granted under Rule 15(a), the Court has discretion 

whether or not to grant leave to amend. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 

321, 330–32 (1971). Factors to consider in determining whether leave to amend should be granted 

include but are not limited to: (1) whether the motion was filed in bad faith or with dilatory motive; 

(2) whether the motion was filed with undue delay; (3) whether leave to amend would be unduly 

prejudicial to the opposing parties; and (4) whether the proposed amendment would be futile. See 

Bell v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 452, 454 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 

178, 182 (1962)); Williams v. Little Rock Mun. Water Works, 21 F.3d 218, 224 (8th Cir. 1994). 

“Duplicative and frivolous claims are futile.” Reuter v. Jax Ltd., 711 F.3d 918, 922 (8th Cir. 2013).

The Court finds Plaintiff's Motion to Amended Complaint should be denied because it is 

duplicative of claims previously asserted. The proposed amendment would not cure the 

deficiencies identified in the current complaint and discussed above. The Court finds that the 

proposed amended complaint would not survive review for the same reasons discussed above. 

Therefore, it would be futile to allow Plaintiff to file the proposed amended complaint and 

Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint should be denied. 

3. Conclusion: 

Based upon the foregoing, the Court recommends Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 35) should be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 

Amend Complaint (ECF No. 39) should be DENIED.

 The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation 

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the 

district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990). 

Case 4:23-cv-04029-SOH Document 45 Filed 01/25/24 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:

<pageID>
11

DATED this 25th day of January 2024.

 /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT

 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 4:23-cv-04029-SOH Document 45 Filed 01/25/24 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:

<pageID>