Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_23-cv-01192/USCOURTS-ared-4_23-cv-01192-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

DWBI INVESTMENTS, LLC PLAINTIFF/ 

COUNTERDEFENDANT 

v. No. 4:23-cv-1192-DPM 

SUTTER & GILLHAM, P.L.L.C. 

v. 

DAVID DENNIS; DENNIS FOOD 

GROUP, LLC; LEPHIEW GIN 

COMPAN~INC~TYSONFOOD~ 

INC.; LEPHIEW DENNINGTON; 

TYSON SALES AND DISTRIBUTION, 

INC.; TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC.; 

BENJAMIN MCCORKLE; BEACON 

LEGAL GROUP, PLLC; TIMOTHY 

DUDLEY; RICKEY HICKS; and GARY, 

WILLIAMS, PARENTI, WATSON, 

DEFENDANT/ 

COUNTERCLAIMANT/ 

CROSS-CLAIMANT 

GARY & GILLESPIE, P.L.L.C. DEFENDANTS/ 

CROSS-DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

1. This case arises from two lawsuits in Arkansas state court, a 

deal with a third-party investor, and a settlement. David Dennis and 

Dennis Food Group initially sued various Tyson entities, Lephiew 

Dennington, and Lephiew Gin Company in 2014. Dennis was 

Case 4:23-cv-01192-DPM Document 79 Filed 05/17/24 Page 1 of 5
represented by Sutter & Gillham, P.L.L.C. and Rickey Hicks. Sutter & 

Gillham moved to withdraw from that case after the relationship with 

Dennis soured. In its motion to withdraw, the firm said it was owed 

attorney's fees and costs. Dennis and Dennis Food Group did not 

oppose the motion. And they eventually voluntarily dismissed the 

2014 case. 

, Dennis and Dennis Food Group re-filed the same lawsuit against 

the same defendants in state court in 2016. They were first represented 

by Timothy Dudley, and later by Benjamin McCorkle, Beacon Legal 

Group, and Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson, Gary, and Gillespie, 

P.L.L.C. DWBI Investments invested in the 2016 lawsuit by signing a 

non-recourse purchase agreement with Dennis individually and 

Dennis Food Group. The agreement provided that DWBI would get all 

or part of any proceeds from the lawsuit. McCorkle and Beacon Legal 

Group also signed an attorney acknowledgment form, which stated 

that DWBI' s interest in the proceeds would take priority over all other 

payments from the proceeds. The case eventually settled. Tyson paid 

the money into Beacon Legal Group's trust account. DWBI says it 

didn't get its share of the settlement money. 

DWBI has now sued everyone involved in both state court cases. 

Against the parties to the non-recourse purchase agreement, DWBI 

presses a claim for breach of contract. It also brings a declaratory 

judgment claim, asking that this Court declare that it is entitled to part 

-2-

Case 4:23-cv-01192-DPM Document 79 Filed 05/17/24 Page 2 of 5
- . - ···---------- --- ------

or all of the settlement proceeds. It also asks for an accounting to 

determine who has those proceeds now. 

Sutter & Gillham has counterclaimed against DWBI and 

crossclaimed against the other defendants in this case. The law firm 

says that, because it reserved its attorney's lien in the 2014 case, it's 

entitled to a portion of the settlement proceeds of the 2016 case. 

There are motions to dismiss and for sanctions. 

2. DWBI has stated a plausible declaratory judgment claim 

against Dudley and the Tyson entities. Taking the pleaded facts as true, 

DWBI has a perfected interest in the settlement proceeds from the 

2016 state court case. It seeks this Court's confirmation of that interest. 

Tyson presses that it has no dog in the fight at this point: it paid the 

settlement money and got a release, which makes others responsible for 

any liens. This is a strong argument. But it rests on documents that 

may not be embraced by the pleadings, especially the McCorkle 

affidavit and perhaps the settlement agreement. Rather than quibble 

over this procedural point, whether Tyson should stay in, on all claims, 

can be better addressed in focused summary judgment papers. DWBI' s 

declaratory judgment claim goes forward against Tyson and Dudley 

for now. 

DWBI' s accounting claim, however, is dismissed. As DWBI 

acknowledges, Dudley and the Tyson entities are correct that 

accounting isn't a cause of action in Arkansas. Panhandle Oil and Gas, 

-3-

Case 4:23-cv-01192-DPM Document 79 Filed 05/17/24 Page 3 of 5
Inc. v. BHP Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville), LLC, 2017 Ark. App. 201, at 

11, 520 S.W.3d 277, 285. It is a remedy. This issue remains in the case, 

though, because DWBI requests this relief. 2017 Ark. App. 

201 at 11 n.5, 520 S.W.3d at 285 n.5. 

3. The motions to dismiss Sutter & Gillham' s crossclaims are 

denied. The facts surrounding the law firm's contention that it has a 

valid attorney's lien on the settlement proceeds from the 2016 case are 

muddy. And the law regarding whether a valid attorney's lien can 

follow a cause of action to a second lawsuit on the same cause of action 

between the same parties is unsettled. Grayson v. Bank of Little Rock, 

334 Ark. 180, 186, 971 S.W.2d 788, 791 (1998). Sutter & Gillham allege 

that it had a contract with David Dennis and Dennis Food Group to 

bring the 2014 lawsuit. Doc. 9-1. The law firm also says it served a 

written notice of its lien on Tyson in compliance with ARK. CODE ANN. 

§ 16-22-304. More briefing on the law, and development of the factual 

record, are needed. At this point, Sutter & Gillham has plausibly stated 

crossclaims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, conversion, 

and unjust enrichment. 

4. The motions for sanctions are also denied. They rehash the 

arguments pro and con on Dudley's motion to dismiss Sutter & 

Gillham' s crossclaim. The Court has denied that motion, so there is no 

basis for sanctions under Rule 11. Sutter & Gillham's request for an 

evidentiary hearing is also denied. 

-4-

Case 4:23-cv-01192-DPM Document 79 Filed 05/17/24 Page 4 of 5
* * * 

Motions to dismiss, Doc. 21 & 39, mostly denied and partly 

granted as to the accounting claim. Motions, Doc. 23, 61, 63 & 72, 

denied. An Initial Scheduling Order will issue. 

So Ordered. 

D.P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

-5-

Case 4:23-cv-01192-DPM Document 79 Filed 05/17/24 Page 5 of 5