Joyner v. Dumas Arkansas, City of

E.D. Arkansas

Joyner v. Dumas Arkansas, City of

DecidedJuly 26, 2024

Docket2:22-cv-00062

StatusUnknown

This text of Joyner v. Dumas Arkansas, City of (Joyner v. Dumas Arkansas, City of) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joyner v. Dumas Arkansas, City of, (E.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION

ROSCOE JOYNER and JOYNER CONSTRUCTION LLC PLAINTIFFS

v. No. 2:22-cv-62-DPM

CITY OF DUMAS, ARKANSAS DEFENDANT

ORDER The Court appreciates the parties’ briefs on the Rule 17 issues. Joyner has confirmed that Joyner Construction, LLC doesn’t exist. His bid was from “Joyner Construction.” And he meant to name as co-plaintiff “Joyner Construction Company” —a sole proprietorship. Neither Joyner Construction nor Joyner Construction Company has a separate legal identity from Joyner. Shamlin v. Quadrangle Enterprises, Inc., 101 Ark. App. 164, 174 272 S.W.3d 128, 135-36 (2008). And as an unregistered business entity, neither one has capacity to sue under Arkansas law. Fausett and Co. v. Bogard, 285 Ark. 124, 126, 685 S.W.2d 153, 155 (1985). Over the years, Joyner has had various entities (including an LLC and a corporation) with very similar names. But none of those entities has anything to do with this lawsuit. Joyner’s embedded motion to substitute, Doc. 49 at 2, is denied as unnecessary. The Court directs the Clerk to drop Joyner Construction, LLC as a named party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The Court also directs the

Clerk to update Joyner’s name from “Roscoe Joyner” to “Roscoe Joyner, d/b/a Joyner Construction Company.” That change reflects the truth of the matter. There is no prejudice to the city from this correction. So Ordered. Dah fj. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge Ale fuly Aba4

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION

ROSCOE JOYNER and JOYNER CONSTRUCTION LLC PLAINTIFFS

v. No. 2:22-cv-62-DPM

CITY OF DUMAS, ARKANSAS DEFENDANT

ORDER The Court appreciates the parties’ briefs on the Rule 17 issues. Joyner has confirmed that Joyner Construction, LLC doesn’t exist. His bid was from “Joyner Construction.” And he meant to name as co-plaintiff “Joyner Construction Company” —a sole proprietorship. Neither Joyner Construction nor Joyner Construction Company has a separate legal identity from Joyner. Shamlin v. Quadrangle Enterprises, Inc., 101 Ark. App. 164, 174 272 S.W.3d 128, 135-36 (2008). And as an unregistered business entity, neither one has capacity to sue under Arkansas law. Fausett and Co. v. Bogard, 285 Ark. 124, 126, 685 S.W.2d 153, 155 (1985). Over the years, Joyner has had various entities (including an LLC and a corporation) with very similar names. But none of those entities has anything to do with this lawsuit. Joyner’s embedded motion to substitute, Doc. 49 at 2, is denied as unnecessary. The Court directs the Clerk to drop Joyner Construction, LLC as a named party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The Court also directs the

Clerk to update Joyner’s name from “Roscoe Joyner” to “Roscoe Joyner, d/b/a Joyner Construction Company.” That change reflects the truth of the matter. There is no prejudice to the city from this correction. So Ordered. Dah fj. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge Ale fuly Aba4

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Joyner v. Dumas Arkansas, City of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joyner-v-dumas-arkansas-city-of-ared-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack