University Medical Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Team Direct Management, LLC

2025 Ark. App. 297

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: May 14, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 297 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-23-823

Opinion Delivered May 14, 2025 UNIVERSITY MEDICAL PHARMACEUTICALS CORP. APPEAL FROM THE BENTON APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 04CV-21-2901] V. HONORABLE CHRISTINE HORWART, JUDGE TEAM DIRECT MANAGEMENT, LLC APPELLEE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge

University Medical Pharmaceuticals Corp. appeals the order of the Benton County

Circuit Court granting judgment to appellee Team Direct Management, LLC. We dismiss

the appeal without prejudice for lack of a final order.

Team Direct filed suit against University Medical in December 2021 alleging claims

for breach of a written contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Before trial,

Team Direct filed a motion to nonsuit its claim for breach of contract pursuant to Rule 41(a)

of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. The circuit court granted the motion on August

15, 2023, and dismissed without prejudice the breach-of-contract claim. The claims of

promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment were heard at a bench trial. After the trial, the

circuit court entered judgment in favor of Team Direct in the amount of $460,837.02 on the basis of unjust enrichment. University Medical filed a timely notice of appeal from this

order.

Whether an order is final for appeal purposes is a jurisdictional question that this

court will raise sua sponte. Barr v. FPI Ark. LLC, 2020 Ark. App. 209, 598 S.W.3d 870.

Pursuant to Rule 2(a)(1) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil, a party may

appeal from a final judgment or decree entered by the circuit court. A final order is one that

dismisses the parties, discharges them from the action, or concludes their rights to the subject

matter in controversy. Barr, supra. Any judgment or order that adjudicates fewer than all

the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not terminate the

action as to any of the claims or parties absent a certificate from the circuit court directing

that the judgment is final. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(2). Here, the order disposes of fewer

than all the claims, and there is no Rule 54(b) certificate.

Team Direct asserted three claims in its complaint, and the order on appeal

adjudicates only one of those claims—unjust enrichment. Although Team Direct dismissed

its breach-of-contract claim before trial, the parties to a lawsuit cannot create a final order by

taking a voluntary nonsuit dismissing their remaining claims without prejudice. Barr, supra.

Voluntary nonsuits are governed by Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), which provides

that an action may be dismissed without prejudice to a future action by the plaintiff assuming

there has been no previous dismissal. When a nonsuit has been made effective, a new action

may be filed within one year of the nonsuit or within the applicable statute of limitations,

whichever is longer. Stodola v. Lynch, 2017 Ark. 181, 519 S.W.3d 677 (citing Ark. Code

2 Ann. § 16-56-126(a)(1) (Repl. 2005)). The limitations period on a claim for breach of a

written contract is five years. Filat v. Rand, 2015 Ark. App. 316, 463 S.W.3d 301. The

earliest the cause of action would have accrued in this case is December 2020, meaning the

time for refiling has not yet expired.

Furthermore, the circuit court’s order does not address Team Direct’s promissory-

estoppel claim. In City of Fort Smith v. B&A Electric, Inc., 2019 Ark. App. 575, the jury

returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs on both their breach-of-contract claims and their

unjust-enrichment claims. The parties agreed that damages could not be awarded for both;

accordingly, with the parties’ consent, the circuit court entered judgment on only the breach-

of-contract claims. We dismissed the appeal because the order did not dispose of the unjust-

enrichment claims. Here, the order does not dispose of Team Direct’s breach-of-contract

claim or promissory-estoppel claim. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to decide the merits

of the appeal.

Dismissed without prejudice.

ABRAMSON and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

Wilson & Associates, PLLC, by: H. Keith Morrison, for appellant.

Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: Kimberly D. Young, Marshall S. Ney, Katherine C.

Campbell, and Alexa R. Mizer, for appellee.