Kerry Murphy and Blue Monkey, Inc., v. Michelle Smith Designs d/b/a Blue Dog Designs

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Publish  Judge Wendell Griffen  DIVISION III  CA07­251  December 5, 2007  KERRY MURPHY AND BLUE  MONKEY, INC.  APPELLANTS  v.  AN APPEAL FROM SALINE COUNTY  CIRCUIT COURT  [NO. CV2006­231­3]  MICHELLE SMITH DESIGNS D/B/A  BLUE DOG DESIGNS  APPELLEE  HONORABLE GRISHAM PHILLIPS,  CIRCUIT JUDGE  APPEAL DISMISSED  Appellants Kerry Murphy and Blue Monkey, Inc., appeal from an order refusing to  dissolve a preliminary injunction. We dismiss the appeal because the record was not timely  filed.  In  January  2004,  Murphy  sold  the  assets  of  his  silk­screening  and  embroidery  business, Blue Dog Designs, to Michelle Smith Designs (“Smith”) and agreed to work for  Smith as the manager of the business. Among the documents Murphy signed in connection  with  the  sale  was  a  “Non­Competition  and  Confidentiality  Agreement,”  in  which  he  essentially agreed not to compete with Smith or solicit Smith’s customers or employees for  two years after the end of his employment.  Murphy’s employment ended on or about January 4, 2006. On March 2, 2006, Smith  sued Murphy and the new company he was working for, Blue Monkey, Inc., claiming that Murphy violated the non­compete agreement by operating a business similar to Smith’s and  diverting Smith’s customers and employees. The trial court entered a preliminary injunction  on March 28, 2006, finding that Murphy was operating a screen­printing, embroidery, and  design company that was doing substantially the same kind of work as Smith and performing  services for Smith’s customers. Murphy was enjoined from operating his business in nineteen  Arkansas counties, pending a final determination on the merits.  The case was set for a final hearing on October 20, 2006. However, when Murphy  learned that the case would be continued, he asked the court to dissolve the preliminary  injunction.  The  court  entered  an  order  on  January  23,  2007,  denying  Murphy’s  request.  Murphy filed his notice of appeal from that order on February 22, 2007. The record was filed  with our clerk’s office on March 9, 2007.  Murphy’s appeal is brought pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.–Civil 2(a)(6), which provides  that an appeal may be taken from:  An  interlocutory  order  by  which  an  injunction  is  granted,  continued,  modified,  refused, or dissolved, or by which an application to dissolve or modify an injunction  is refused.  When an appeal is taken from an interlocutory order pursuant to Rule 2(a)(6) or an order  appointing a receiver pursuant to Rule 2(a)(7), “the record must be filed with the Clerk of  the  Supreme  Court  within  thirty  (30)  days  from the  entry  of  such  order.”  Ark.  R.  App.  P.–Civil 5(a). The order appealed from in this case was entered on January 23, 2007, making  the record due on February 22, 2007. See Johnson v. Langley, 93 Ark. App. 214, 218 S.W.3d  363 (2005); see also U.S. Bank v. Milburn, 352 Ark. 144, 100 S.W.3d 674 (2003) (involving 2  an appeal from an order appointing a receiver).  However, the record was not filed until  March 9, 2007. It was therefore untimely, and we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal.  See Conlee v. Conlee, 366 Ark. 342, ___ S.W.3d __ (2006) (holding that the timely filing  of the record is a jurisdictional requirement for perfecting an appeal). Consequently, the  appeal must be dismissed.  Although neither party has argued this issue in their briefs, we have a duty to raise  questions concerning our own jurisdiction even if the parties do not. See generally Barnes  v. Newton, 69 Ark. App. 115, 10 S.W.3d 472 (2000).  Appeal dismissed.  HART and GLADWIN, JJ., agree. 3 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.