Court Opinion

ID: 7823552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 18:01:54.2397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:48.141368
License: Public Domain

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully disagree with the majority. The only reason an order of dismissal as to one of several defendants is not ordinarily appealable under ARCP Rule 54(b) is because other defendants remain and the litigation is not disposed of and piecemeal appeals would result. Tulio v. Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 283 Ark. 278, 675 S.W.2d 369 (1984). Pridgen Security, Inc. has been dismissed from the action under ARCP Rule 12(b)(6) and Wanda Sue Beard has been dismissed by virtue of a settlement. Thus, if United Parcel Service, Inc., cannot appeal from the order of dismissal as to Pridgen Security this litigation has ended. I suppose it can be reasoned that since the dismissal of Pridgen Security was without prejudice, Ratcliff v. Moss, 284 Ark. 16, 678 S.W.2d 369 (1984), United Parcel Service can bring a new action under the indemnity agreement against Pridgen Security. However, United Parcel’s third-party complaint against Pridgen was allowed in this case under ARCP Rule 14(a), one of the purposes of which is to avoid a multiplicity of suits by settling all controversies in one proceeding. Aclin Ford Co. v. Fiat Motors, 275 Ark. 445, 631 S.W.2d 283 (1982). In the context of this case the dismissal of the appeal seems to me to defeat the purpose of both rules. I would consider the appeal on its merits.