Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 1, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Mumtaz Mf v. Sammie Lindsey and Smart Grocery, LLC

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

• Citations: 2026 Ark. App. 214

• Docket Number: Unknown

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 214
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-25-147

MUMTAZ MF Opinion Delivered April 1, 2026
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE BRADLEY
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 06CV-24-35]

SAMMIE LINDSEY AND SMART HONORABLE QUINCEY ROSS, JUDGE
GROCERY, LLC
APPELLEES
REBRIEFING ORDERED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

Appellant Mumtaz Mf appeals the orders of the Bradley County Circuit Court finding

that (1) appellant fraudulently induced appellee Sammi Lindsey into a lease agreement and (2)

appellant violated the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The circuit court

denied appellant’s counterclaim and awarded appellee $48,910.75 in damages and $5,110.00 in

attorney’s fees and costs. The circuit court also denied appellant’s motion for reconsideration

or, in the alternative, to set aside judgment. Appellant argues that the circuit court erred by (1)

finding appellant liable for fraudulent inducement, (2) finding that there was a warranty of

fitness for a particular purpose because the parties entered a common-law lease, and (3) ignoring

Veterans Day 2024 and denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration. Because of briefing

deficiencies, we are unable to reach the merits of appellant’s arguments and instead order

rebriefing.
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(1)1 provides that “[o]n the cover of every brief there

should appear the number and style of the case, . . . the name or names of counsel who prepared

it, including their bar numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses.” The cover

in appellant’s brief displays an incorrect case number, referencing a case handed down by this

court in March 2025. Additionally, the cover fails to include the attorneys’ telephone numbers

and email addresses.

Rule 4-2(a)(5)(C) requires the jurisdictional statement of an appellant’s brief to note—

under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2—whether the appeal should be decided by the Arkansas

Supreme Court or the Arkansas Court of Appeals. Appellant’s brief has failed to identify which

court under Rule 1-2 should hear the appeal.

Rule 4-2(a)(6) states that the “appellant’s brief shall contain a concise statement of the

case and the facts without argument. The statement shall identify and discuss all material factual

and procedural information contained in the record on appeal. . . . All material information

must be supported by citations to the pages of the appellate record where the information can

be found.” Appellant’s statement of the case and the facts is just over one page, but it violates

this rule. The statement contains argument with little to no factual or procedural information,

and it fails to support the information by citations to the pages in the record.

Rule 4-2(a)(7) provides that appellant’s brief “shall be presented under subheadings

numbered to correspond to the outline of points to be relied upon. For each issue, the applicable

standard of review shall be concisely stated at the beginning of the discussion of the issue.”

1
(2025).

2
Appellant has not put the standard of review under each issue as required, opting instead to

place the standard of review under the argument heading. The rule also requires that case

citations follow the format prescribed in Rule 5-2. Appellant’s brief violates this rule in that it

does not follow the uniform citation form found in Rule 5-2(d).

Additionally, Rule 5-2(c) sets out the precedential value of cases issued by both the

supreme court and the court of appeals. It specifically states that “[o]pinions of the Supreme

Court and Court of Appeals issued before July 1, 2009, and not designated for publication shall

not be cited, quoted, or referred to . . . in any argument, brief, or other material presented to

any court[.]” Appellant’s brief lists at least two 2007 opinions that were not designated for

publication in violation of this rule.

We may raise the issue of deficiencies on our own, at any time.2 The mandatory language

of Rule 4-2 prevents us from overlooking counsel’s failure to comply with the rules. Accordingly,

we order appellant’s counsel to file a substituted brief curing any deficiencies within thirty days

from the date of this opinion. The list of deficiencies noted is not exhaustive, and we encourage

counsel to carefully examine our rules before resubmitting a brief. If appellant fails to file a

complying brief within the prescribed time, the judgment may be affirmed or the appeal

dismissed for noncompliance with the rule.3

Rebriefing ordered.

KLAPPENBACH, C.J., and BARRETT, J., agree.

2
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-4(g)(2)(C) (2025).

3
Id.

3
F. Mattison Thomas III and Ryan Wolf, for appellant.

One brief only.

4