Dragan Vicentic, Individually and as a Member, Director, and Officer of Green Springs Medical, LLC v. Bruce Simpson

2021 Ark. App. 106

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: March 3, 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 106

Elizabeth Perry ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS I attest to the accuracy and DIVISION I integrity of this document No. CV-19-913 2023.06.22 14:57:49 -05'00' 2023.001.20174 Opinion Delivered: March 3, 2021

DRAGAN VICENTIC, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A MEMBER, DIRECTOR, AND OFFICER OF APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND GREEN SPRINGS MEDICAL, LLC COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT APPELLANT [NO. 26CV-19-1211]

V. HONORABLE TED CAPEHEART, JUDGE BRUCE SIMPSON APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

Appellant Dragan Vicentic, individually and as a member, director, and officer of

Green Springs Medical, LLC, brings this interlocutory appeal challenging the Garland

County Circuit Court’s order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of appellee Bruce

Simpson. Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in granting the injunction because

Simpson failed to prove that he was a member of Green Springs Medical, LLC, and the

alleged harm Simpson would suffer was not irreparable. Because of briefing deficiencies,

we are unable to reach the meris of appellant’s argument and instead order rebriefing.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B) 1 provides in pertinent part that the

“question-and-answer format shall not be used. In the extraordinary situations where a

1 (2019). short exchange cannot be converted to a first-person narrative without losing important

meaning, however, the abstract may include brief quotations from the transcript.” Here,

over forty-five pages of the 113-page abstract contain some question-and-answer format or

variation thereof. Despite counsel’s contention that the “Q-and-A format [is used] to

preserve nuance and interplay,” it is clear that the exchanges could have been converted

without losing important meaning. Thus, no extraordinary situation, as contemplated by

the rule, exists. Accordingly, we order rebriefing, and pursuant to Rule 4-2(b)(3), 2 we

direct counsel to file a substituted brief that cures these deficiencies within fifteen days of

the date of this order. After service of the substituted brief, appellee shall have the

opportunity to revise or supplement its brief, or he may choose to rely on the brief

previously filed in this appeal. While we have noted the above-described deficiencies, we

strongly encourage counsel to review our rules to ensure that no other deficiencies are

present. Failure to file a compliant brief after the opportunity to cure the deficiencies may

result in the order being affirmed for noncompliance with the rule.

Rebriefing ordered.

ABRAMSON and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree.

Culpepper Law Firm, PLLC, by: Ryan K. Culpepper, for appellant.

Gary M. Lax and D. Scott Hickam, for appellee.

2 (2019).