Meyer v. CDI Contractors, LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
ROBERT MEYER d/b/a MEYER
EXCAVATORS CONTRACTORS
APPELLANT,
VS.
08-654
Opinion Delivered M ay 21, 2009
AN APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO.
CV02-6804, HONORABLE JAY
MOODY, CIRCUIT JUDGE
CDI CONTRACTORS, LLC
APPELLEE,
AFFIRMED FOR
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ARK.
SUP. CT. R. 4-2
PER CURIAM
In a per curiam opinion dated March 5, 2009, we declined to address the merits of
the appeal in this case because of appellant Meyer’s briefing deficiencies, stating as follows:
Meyer failed to abstract depositions that provided a substantial amount of
evidence to support CDI's motion for summary judgment. Further, on July 6,
2005, Meyer filed a response to CDI's motion for summary judgment that
stated: “[Meyer] has controverted the facts alleged by [CDI] as detailed in
[Meyer's] Brief in Support of this Response. [Meyer] incorporates by reference
his Brief in Support of this Response.” (Emphasis added). CDI's reply brief
indicates that Meyer filed his brief in support of his July 6, 2005 response, but
it is not included in the addendum or the record. Thus, the record is incomplete.
Meyer v. CDI Contractors, LLC., ___ Ark. ___, ___, ___S.W.3d ___ (Mar. 5, 2009) (second
emphasis added).
Under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2 and Ark. R. App. P.– Civ. 6(c), this court ordered Meyer
“to file a substituted abstract, addendum, and brief, and to file a certified, supplemental record
that includes the omitted brief in support within fifteen days from the date of entry of this
order.” Id. at ___, ___ S.W.3d at ___ (emphasis added). Further, we stated that if Meyer
failed to comply with the order “within the prescribed time, the judgment appealed from may
be affirmed for noncompliance with Rule 4-2.” Id. at ___, ___ S.W.3d at ___.
In response, Meyer submitted a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum that includes
abstracts of the depositions. He also submitted a supplemental record with the missing brief
in support (“Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s Response to CDI’s Second Motion for Summary
Judgment”). However, Meyer again failed to include the brief in support in the substituted
addendum.
This case was decided by the trial court on a motion for summary judgment. The
burden was on appellant to provide us a record, abstract, addendum, and brief that allows this
court to understand and address the issues presented to us. After we ordered rebriefing in this
case — with directions — Meyer failed to comply with our order and our briefing rules
under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary
judgment.
Affirmed for noncompliance with Rule 4-2.
-2-
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.
