DAYONG YANG, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Le Yang, Deceased, Appellant
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas; Stuart Thomas, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Little Rock; Wayne Bewley, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Assistant Chief of Police for the City of Little Rock; Laura Martin, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Communications Center Manager for the City of Little Rock; Linda Wilson, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Communications Administrator for the City of Little Rock; Sharon Martin, in Her Official Capacity as Communications Shift Supervisor for the City of Little Rock; Alan Cate, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Communications Shift Supervisor for the City of Little Rock; Marquita Dooley, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Emergency Communications Trainer for the City of Little Rock; Candace Middleton, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Communications Call Taker for the City of Little Rock; Karen Grimm, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Communications Systems Specialist for the City of Little Rock; Gregory L. Summers, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Fire Chief for the City of Little Rock; Robert Sharp, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Fire Captain for the City of Little Rock; and Frank Scott and Eddie Rhine, Individually and in Their Official Capacities as Firefighters for the City of Little Rock, Appellees
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 60CV-13-3115],
HONORABLE TIMOTHY DAVIS FOX, JUDGE
Woods, P.A., by: Carter C. Stein, Little Rock, for appellant.
M. Carpenter, City Attorney; William C. Mann, Chief Deputy
City Attorney, by: Rick D. Hogan, Deputy City Attorney, for
DAN KEMP, Chief Justice
Appellant Dayong Yang, as special administrator of the estate
of his deceased son, Le Yang, appeals an order of the Pulaski
County Circuit Court granting summary judgment to appellees
City of Little Rock, Arkansas; Stuart Thomas; Wayne Bewley;
Laura Martin; Linda Wilson; Sharon Martin; Alan Cate;
Marquita Dooley; Candace Middleton; Karen Grimm; Gregory L.
Summers; Robert Sharp; Frank Scott; and Eddie Rhine
("the City"). For reversal, Yang argues that the
circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on his
negligence and civil-rights claims. We affirm.
court provided a full recitation of the facts in City of
Little Rock v. Yang, 2017 Ark. 18, 509 S.W.3d 632
("Yang I "). Yang had filed a
wrongful-death action against the City and others over the
Citys alleged mishandling of a 911 call seeking rescue
services for his son. In his third amended complaint, Yang
alleged negligence causes of action arising under Arkansas
law and civil-rights violations under 42 U.S.C. section 1983,
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
and Arkansas law. He also sought compensatory and punitive
damages. In Yang I, we affirmed the circuit courts
denial of the Citys motion for summary judgment on the
negligence claims. We held that the City and its employees
had failed to plead and prove that it was entitled to
municipal immunity. We reversed the circuit courts denial of
summary judgment on Yangs negligence claims against MEMS.
Id., 509 S.W.3d 632.
remand, the City moved for summary judgment on Yangs
negligence claims and asserted municipal immunity.
Specifically, the City claimed that it had no
general-liability coverage under Arkansas Code Annotated
section 21-9-301 (Repl. 2016). With its motion, the City
submitted affidavits from Bruce Moore, city manager, and
Stacey Witherell, human-resources director. In their
affidavits, they stated that the City did not possess any
general-liability insurance policy that would cover Yangs
claims. The City did not seek dismissal of Yangs
civil-rights claims in its motion. Yang filed his response to
the Citys renewed motion for summary judgment and argued
that it should be denied because this court had ruled on the
Citys affirmative defense of municipal immunity, and
alternatively, that the City had failed to establish a prima
facie entitlement to summary judgment.
April 13, 2017, the circuit court entered an order granting
the Citys motion for summary judgment and dismissing the
City with prejudice. Yang subsequently filed a motion
requesting modification of the circuit courts order. He
asked the circuit court to clarify that the City had not been
dismissed with prejudice because Yangs section 1983 claims
remained pending. The City responded that the circuit court
was within its discretion to issue the order dismissing the
City with prejudice. On May 25, 2017, the circuit court
denied Yangs motion requesting modification of the order.
Yang now brings his appeal.
first point on appeal, Yang argues that the circuit court
erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the City.
Specifically, Yang contends that the City did not prove any
entitlement to municipal immunity under Arkansas Code
Annotated section ...