Mitchell "mitch" Wine v. Doralee Chandler and Leslie Rutledge, in Their Capacities as Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control Division of the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration and Attorney General of Arkansas, Respectively; And Public Consulting Group, Inc.

2021 Ark. App. 39

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: January 27, 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 39 Digitally signed by Elizabeth ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Perry Date: 2022.08.19 11:11:55 -05'00' CV-19-807 Adobe Acrobat version: 2022.002.20191 Opinion Delivered: January 27, 2021 MITCHELL “MITCH” WINE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NINTH DIVISION [NO. 60CV-19- 510] DORALEE CHANDLER AND LESLIE RUTLEDGE, IN THEIR CAPACITIES HONORABLE MARY SPENCER AS DIRECTOR OF ALCOHOLIC MCGOWAN, JUDGE BEVERAGE CONTROL DIVISION OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF MOTIONS DENIED FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS, RESPECTIVELY; AND PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP, INC. APPELLEES

PER CURIAM

On September 16, 2020, this court reversed and remanded a judgment entered in

the Circuit Court of Pulaski County in favor of appellant, Mitchell Wine. See Wine v.

Chandler, 2020 Ark. App. 412, 607 S.W.3d 522. As a result of the reversal, this court

awarded Wine costs in the amount of $1958.60. After our mandate issued, the case was

remanded to the Circuit Court of Pulaski County.

Appellee, Public Consulting Group (PCG) filed a motion for reconsideration of the

award of costs. On December 9, 2020, this court denied PCG’s motion for reconsideration.

On remand, the case was apparently summarily disposed of by the circuit court in favor of

PCG. Appellee, PCG then filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration of costs on December 28, 2020, and, in its motion, argued inter alia that because it prevailed in the

remanded case in circuit court, we should reconsider the previous award of costs. The

reference therein to activity in the case below while jurisdiction was remanded to circuit

court was improper.

Appellant, Mitchell Wine filed a response to the supplemental motion for

reconsideration and therein alleged inter alia that PCG acted maliciously and was guilty of

spoliation of evidence. Appellee, PCG has filed a motion for permission to file a response

for the purpose of defending Wine’s allegations of spoliation and other malfeasances. Wine

has filed a response to PCG’s motion for permission to file its response.

It is the holding of this court that PCG’s supplemental motion for reconsideration of

costs filed on December 28, 2020, is hereby denied. In determining the disposition of this

motion, this court has not relied on any motion or response filed after December 28, 2020,

and all subsequent motions are hereby denied.

HARRISON, C.J., dissents without written opinion.

ABRAMSON, J., not participating.

Mitchell Wine, pro se appellant.

Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, by: Michael N. Shannon, for separate appellee

Public Consulting Group, Inc.