The opinion
Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 106
Elizabeth Perry
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
I attest to the accuracy and
DIVISION I
integrity of this document
No. CV-19-913
2023.06.22 14:57:49 -05'00'
2023.001.20174
Opinion Delivered: March 3, 2021
DRAGAN VICENTIC,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A MEMBER,
DIRECTOR, AND OFFICER OF APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND
GREEN SPRINGS MEDICAL, LLC COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
APPELLANT [NO. 26CV-19-1211]
V. HONORABLE TED CAPEHEART,
JUDGE
BRUCE SIMPSON
APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Dragan Vicentic, individually and as a member, director, and officer of
Green Springs Medical, LLC, brings this interlocutory appeal challenging the Garland
County Circuit Court’s order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of appellee Bruce
Simpson. Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in granting the injunction because
Simpson failed to prove that he was a member of Green Springs Medical, LLC, and the
alleged harm Simpson would suffer was not irreparable. Because of briefing deficiencies,
we are unable to reach the meris of appellant’s argument and instead order rebriefing.
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B) 1 provides in pertinent part that the
“question-and-answer format shall not be used. In the extraordinary situations where a
1
(2019).
short exchange cannot be converted to a first-person narrative without losing important
meaning, however, the abstract may include brief quotations from the transcript.” Here,
over forty-five pages of the 113-page abstract contain some question-and-answer format or
variation thereof. Despite counsel’s contention that the “Q-and-A format [is used] to
preserve nuance and interplay,” it is clear that the exchanges could have been converted
without losing important meaning. Thus, no extraordinary situation, as contemplated by
the rule, exists. Accordingly, we order rebriefing, and pursuant to Rule 4-2(b)(3), 2 we
direct counsel to file a substituted brief that cures these deficiencies within fifteen days of
the date of this order. After service of the substituted brief, appellee shall have the
opportunity to revise or supplement its brief, or he may choose to rely on the brief
previously filed in this appeal. While we have noted the above-described deficiencies, we
strongly encourage counsel to review our rules to ensure that no other deficiencies are
present. Failure to file a compliant brief after the opportunity to cure the deficiencies may
result in the order being affirmed for noncompliance with the rule.
Rebriefing ordered.
ABRAMSON and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree.
Culpepper Law Firm, PLLC, by: Ryan K. Culpepper, for appellant.
Gary M. Lax and D. Scott Hickam, for appellee.
2
(2019).
2