Akins v. S & R Development Inc

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: September 25, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00226
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION MICHAEL ANTHONY AKINS d/b/a ABC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PLAINTIFF

No. 3:19-cv-226-DPM S & R DEVELOPMENT INC, officially; HIREN PATEL, President, official capacity; LAMAR FOx, Site Supervisor, official capacity DEFENDANTS ORDER 1. Akins’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Ne 1, is granted. 2. S & R hired Akins to do some construction work in Marion, Arkansas. After Akins completed part of it, S & R paid him a small fraction of what he was owed and then canceled the contract. Akins claims S$ & R has a history of behaving this way. Akins has pleaded diversity jurisdiction. He is a citizen of Arkansas, and S & R is a Mississippi corporation. He states varying damages amounts. But his assertion that the total amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000 appears to be in good faith. The Court dismisses without prejudice Akins’s claim that S & R committed the tort of outrage. He hasn’t alleged emotional distress. Marlar v. Daniel, 368 Ark. 505, 509-10, 247 S.W.3d 473, 477 (2007). Akins has plausible claims for breach of contract (breach of promise is duplicative) and fraud. Acme Brick Co. v. Hamilton, 218 Ark. 742, 747, 238 S.W.2d 658, 661 (1951); Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Davis,

347 Ark. 566, 580, 66 S.W.3d 568, 577 (2002). Service on the defendants is therefore appropriate. Gentile v. Missouri Department of Corrections & Human Resources, 986 F.2d 214, 217 (8th Cir. 1993). 3. The Court directs the Clerk to prepare summonses for the defendants using the addresses provided by Akins. And the Court directs the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Arkansas to serve the summonses and complaint without prepayment of fees. So Ordered.

Fi D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge as Seotemhtr 3014

9.