Joyner v. Dumas Arkansas, City of

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-