Opinion ID: 1086806
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: ADTPA Claim

Text: For the third point on appeal, Skalla argues, without analysis, that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on her claim of Canepari’s violation of the ADTPA. Canepari responds that Skalla failed to produce evidence of a “deceptive consumer-oriented act or practice which is misleading in a material respect,” pursuant to the ADTPA. 13 Cite as 2013 Ark. 415 The Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act provides a private right of action to “any person” who suffers actual damage or injury as a result of a violation of the Act. See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113(f). The Act prohibits a variety of listed practices, including “[k]nowingly making a false representation as to the . . . sponsorship . . . of goods or services” and a catchall provision prohibiting “any other unconscionable, false, or deceptive act or practice in business, commerce, or trade.” Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-107(a)(1), (a)(10). The elements of such a cause of action are (1) a deceptive consumer-oriented act or practice which is misleading in a material respect, and (2) injury resulting from such act. See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113(f). A private cause of action does not arise absent a showing of both a violation and resultant damages. Wallis v. Ford Motor Co., 362 Ark. 317, 208 S.W.3d 153 (2005). Here, Skalla’s claim fails to assert that Canepari engaged in any type of consumeroriented act or practice that caused damages. His business practices involved farming rather than consumer-oriented acts. Based on the language of section 4-88-113(f), there must be a causal connection between the violation of the ADTPA and the injury. Because Skalla simply failed to allege facts setting forth a cause of action for violation of the ADTPA, the circuit court properly granted summary judgment on Skalla’s claim under the ADTPA. Thus, the circuit court properly ruled as a matter of law that the ADTPA was not applicable to the case at bar. In sum, we conclude that Skalla failed to meet proof with proof that she sustained any damages as a result of Canepari’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty, alleged tortious interference, and alleged violation of the ADTPA. Skalla, in her attempt to meet proof with 14 Cite as 2013 Ark. 415 proof in the exhibits attached to her response to Canepari’s motion for summary judgment, offered no evidence to support her claims of Canepari’s interference with her rights and obligations as a cotenant. Thus, we hold that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment as a matter of law on Skalla’s three claims. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s ruling. Affirmed. Daggett, Donovan & Perry, PLLC, by: Robert J. Donovan, for appellant. Chisenhall, Nestrud & Julian, P.A., by: Jason W. Early, for appellee. 15