Court Opinion

ID: 9397017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 14:03:36.632717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.787684
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 311
                    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                        DIVISION III
                                        No. CV-22-491

                                                 Opinion Delivered May   24, 2023

KRISTIAN NELSON                            APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
                                 APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
                                           SEVENTEENTH DIVISION
V.                                         [NO. 60CV-21-6940]

ERIC FULLERTON                              HONORABLE MACKIE M. PIERCE,
                                   APPELLEE JUDGE

                                                 AFFIRMED

                                  MIKE MURPHY, Judge

        Appellant Kristian Nelson appeals the order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court

 dismissing his case against appellee Eric Fullerton with prejudice pursuant to Arkansas Rule

 of Civil Procedure 12(b)(8). On appeal, he argues that this was erroneous. We affirm.

        On October 28, 2021, appellant Kristian Nelson, acting pro se, filed suit against Gina

 and Eric Fullerton; MGK, LLC; and Pinnacle Valley Restaurant, LLC. That case was

 docketed as case No. 60CV-21-6940 and is the case from which this appeal stems. On

 November 2, Nelson, acting through counsel, filed the exact same claims against the same

 parties as a counterclaim in case No. 60CV-16-5830. That case had begun in October 2016

 when MKG, LLC, filed suit against Nelson and two other parties not part of this appeal; it

 was later consolidated with a suit Nelson had brought against the appellees in Jefferson

 County. Nelson’s claims against the appellees were eventually ostensibly dismissed without
prejudice for want of prosecution. A copy of the alleged dismissal was never made part of

this record.

       Only limited filings from case No. 60CV-16-5830 were made part of this record on

appeal through inclusion as exhibits in this case and discussion at the hearing below.

       Nelson never perfected service as to MGK, LLC; Gina Fullerton; and Pinnacle Valley

Restaurant, LLC, in this case before us today. On February 17, 2022, Eric Fullerton, citing

the November 2 counterclaim from case No. 60CV-16-5830, moved to dismiss based on

Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(8), which provides a defense in the event of an

existing pending action between the same parties arising out of the same transaction or

occurrence. At the hearing on the motions to dismiss, counsel made the following argument:

       NELSON’S COUNSEL:           With respect to Case Number 60CV-16-5830, that
                                   matter is no longer a pending matter per Judge Griffen’s
                                   order of dismissal without prejudice. And the Court can
                                   correct me if I’m wrong, but that matter was dismissed as
                                   to all parties involved on November 2nd of 2020. That
                                   is not, as I understand it, a pending matter. . . . And on
                                   October 28, Mr. Nelson filed -- yes, refiled the claim that
                                   was pending prior or previously in Judge Griffen’s court.
                                   Mr. Nelson has provided me with a receipt for the filing
                                   as well as a summons fee which was received by the
                                   Pulaski County Circuit Clerk’s office -- if I can get that
                                   date correct, Your Honor -- October 28, 2021.

       ....

       APPELLEES’ COUNSEL:         The claim is open in Judge Griffen’s court. . . .It is an
                                   open counterclaim there that he filed his appearance in,
                                   that they got summons in, that they had -- they served in.
                                   That is open. . . . [T]his should be dismissed without
                                   prejudice.

                                             2
In the resulting order, the court found in pertinent part that

       [Nelson’s] October 28, 2021 complaint as against Defendant Eric Fullerton is
       dismissed with prejudice under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(8), as there is
       a pending matter between [Nelson] and Defendant Eric Fullerton arising out of the
       same transaction or occurrence, specifically, the November 2, 2021 claims by [Nelson]
       against Fullerton pending in 60CV-16-5830. This is the second dismissal of those
       causes of action against defendant Fullerton with the initial dismissal being the
       November 2, 2020 dismissal without prejudice in 60CV-16-5830.

       Nelson appealed; on appeal he argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing his

claims against Eric Fullerton.

       We review a circuit court’s decision dismissing a complaint pursuant to Arkansas

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(8) de novo. Shipley v. Gardner, 2022 Ark. App. 22, at 3.

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(8), the “pendency of another action between the same parties arising

out of the same transaction or occurrence” can be raised as a defense to a complaint filed by

a plaintiff. We have consistently interpreted Rule 12(b)(8) as applying only to prohibit

identical actions from proceeding between identical parties in two different courts of this

state. Shipley, 2022 Ark. App. 22, at 3.

       Nelson argues in a conclusory and unconvincing manner that, pursuant to Arkansas

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), he “is entitled to a de novo review on the merits of his

complaint.” Despite citing Rule 41, he makes no cogent or persuasive legal argument why

that rule is relevant to the issue before us or why the circuit court specifically erred in

dismissing his complaint under the facts of this case. It is axiomatic that this court will not

consider arguments that are unsupported by convincing argument or sufficient citation to

legal authority. Mann v. Pierce, 2016 Ark. 418, 505 S.W.3d 150. It is a well-settled principle

                                              3
of appellate law that we will not make a party’s argument for him or her. Foster v. Est. of

Collins, 2017 Ark. App. 65, 511 S.W.3d 900. As such, we must affirm.

       Affirmed.

       HIXSON and BROWN, JJ., agree.

       Malcolm A. Simmons, for appellant.

       WH Law, by: Chris W. Burks, for appellees.

                                            4