Stroud Production, LLC v. J-Lu Ltd. Co J-Roc Ltd. Co Ploutos, LLC Sagely Investments, LLC Kevin Schmidt And Monica Schmidt , 2022 Ark. App. 358 ( 2022 )

Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 358ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CV-20-305
STROUD PRODUCTION, LLC
Opinion Delivered September 28, 2022
APPELLANT
V. APPEAL FROM THE MILLER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
J-LU LTD. CO; J-ROC LTD. CO; PLOUTOS, [NO. 46CV-14-66]
LLC; SAGELY INVESTMENTS, LLC;
KEVIN SCHMIDT; AND MONICA
SCHMIDT HONORABLE BRENT HALTOM,
APPELLEES JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
Appellant Stroud Production, LLC, owns oil and gas leases in two production units
in the Kelly Bayou oil field in far southwest Arkansas. Stroud claims it was not paid proceeds
by the former operators of the two oil production units, appellees J-Lu Ltd. Co. (“J-Lu”) and
Ploutos, LLC (“Ploutos”), and sued both. J-Lu sought damages against Stroud for conversion
of equipment and oil in storage. After a bench trial, the circuit court denied most of Stroud’s
claim, finding that it did not meet its burden of proof. Stroud was awarded $141,414.46 for
money held in escrow. The court awarded J-Lu damages against Stroud for oil in storage in
the amount of $13,470 and for conversion of equipment in the amount of $362,550. Stroud
appealed. We cannot reach the merits of the appeal at this time because of deficiencies in
Stroud’s addendum. We therefore order rebriefing.
Although electronic filing of appeals is now mandatory for cases in which the notice
of appeal was filed on or after June 1, 2021, see In re Acceptance of Records on Appeal in Elec.
Format, 2020 Ark. 421 (per curiam), the notice of appeal in this case was filed on February
14, 2020. This case is therefore governed by the prior rules and requires an abstract and an
addendum. See id. The prior rules required that the addendum contain copies of the
nontranscript documents in the record on appeal that are essential for the appellate court to
confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal. Ark. Sup.
Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8) (2019).
This litigation involves two companion cases. Stroud filed the first suit on December
5, 2013, against Ploutos and J-Lu. This case was assigned docket number 46CV-13-298 in
the circuit court. In this suit, Stroud sought to recover oil-production proceeds in the amount
of $459,987.62 from J-Lu and Ploutos.
On March 19, 2014, J-Lu and J-Roc Ltd. Co. filed a separate suit against Ploutos;
Sagely Investments, LLC; Kevin Schmidt; and Monica Schmidt. This case was assigned
docket number 46CV-14-66. This case involved a dispute over expenses and operation of
various wells in the Kelly Bayou oil field.
By order entered March 9, 2015, the two cases were consolidated into case number
46CV-14-66, the suit filed by J-Lu and J-Roc.
The problem arises because, as J-Lu points out in its brief, not all the pleadings from
both cases are contained in the addendum. Stroud also acknowledges this in its table of
contents by indicating that the earlier pleadings, including the original complaint, are not
2
included, and only the final versions of the pleadings are included in the addendum. The
prior version of Rule 4-2(a)(8) required addendums to include complaints, answers,
counterclaims, replies to counterclaims, cross-claims, answers to cross-claims, third-party
complaints, and answers to third-party complaints. See Rain Invs. LLC v. Vu, 2022 Ark. App.
93. This includes all amended versions of these pleadings. Id.Here, there are numerous deficiencies. It appears that pleadings from Stroud’s
original case are included in the record at pages 1–275. None of these pleadings, however,
are included in the addendum. This includes Stroud’s original complaint and first amended
complaint; J-Lu’s motion to strike, answer to complaint, and cross-claims; its first amended
cross-claims; and its answer to the first amended complaint and second amended cross-
claims. Ploutos’s answer to the cross-claims and J-Lu’s response to the answer are also missing
from the addendum.
The pleadings in the original case filed by J-Lu and J-Roc begin on page 276 of the
record with the original complaint. The addendum in the present case begins on page 333
of the record with Ploutos’s answer and counterclaim in response to J-Lu and J-Roc’s original
complaint. However, the complaint to which Ploutos’s pleading responds is not in the
addendum, and it should be. See Agrifund, LLC v. Regions Bank, 2019 Ark. App. 414, at 4–5.
Stroud’s motion to intervene, J-Lu’s response, Stroud’s motion to consolidate the
cases, and the order of consolidation are likewise not included in the addendum. They, too,
should be in the addendum. Because of the procedural history of this case, we note that
these documents would give some important context to the litigation.
3
This list is not exhaustive. We further encourage appellate counsel, prior to filing the
substituted addendum, to review our rules and the substituted addendum to ensure that no
additional deficiencies are present.
Because Stroud has failed to comply with our rules, we order it to file a substituted
addendum within fifteen days from the date of entry of this order. After service of the
substituted addendum, J-Lu and J-Roc shall have seven days to revise or supplement its brief.
Rebriefing ordered.
HARRISON, C.J., agrees.
HIXSON, J., concurs without opinion.
Jonathan W. Beck, for appellant.
Harrelson Law Firm, P.A., by: Steve Harrelson, for separate appellees J-Lu Ltd. Co. and
J-Roc Ltd. Co.
4