Case Law GGNSC Arkadelphia, LLC v. Lamb

GGNSC Arkadelphia, LLC v. Lamb

Document Cited Authorities (34) Cited in (23) Related

Hardin, Jesson & Terry, PLC, by: Kirkman T. Dougherty, Fort Smith, Jeffrey W. Hatfield, and Kynda Almefty, Little Rock; Dechert, LLP, by: H. Joseph Escher III ; and Eugene Bramblett, Camden, for appellant.

Campbell Law Firm, P.A., by: H. Gregory Campbell ; Ludwig Law Firm, PLC, by: Gene A. Ludwig ; and Reddick Moss, PLLC, by: Brian D. Reddick, for appellees.

Opinion

COURTNEY HUDSON GOODSON, Associate Justice

Appellants GGNSC Arkadelphia, LLC d/b/a/ Golden Living Center–Arkadelphia, and others, bring this interlocutory appeal from the order entered by the Ouachita County Circuit Court certifying a class action filed by appellees Nellie R. Lamb, by and through Richard Williams, as guardian of the estate and person of Nellie R. Lamb, and others. For reversal, appellants contend that appellees did not meet their burden of proving the predominance of common issues for the certification of the class. They also argue that class adjudication is neither efficient nor fair and that the class definition is flawed. We affirm the circuit court's decision.

I. Factual Background

The appellants in this case are twelve nursing-home facilities doing business as Golden

Living Centers in cities throughout the State of Arkansas.1 Appellants also include alleged related entities and various officers, directors, administrators, and persons allegedly serving in leadership positions. Appellees, who are former residents of the nursing homes or special administrators, guardians, or attorneys-in-fact of former residents, brought this class-action suit against appellants in the Circuit Court of Ouachita County. In a second amended complaint, appellees individually, and on behalf of all residents of the Golden Living Centers from December 2006 to July 1, 2009, alleged that appellants breached their statutory and contractual obligations by failing to properly staff the facilities and by failing to meet minimum staffing requirements. Specifically, appellees asserted that the alleged practice of chronically understaffing the nursing homes breached the facilities' standard admission agreement and violated the Arkansas Long–Term Care Residents' Rights Act (Residents' Rights Act). Based on the alleged violation of the Residents' Rights Act, they also presented a claim under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA). Appellees sought punitive damages and compensation for an array of injuries arising from the loss of dignity, the deprivation of residents' rights, poor hygiene, filthy living conditions, foul odors, the delivery of cold food, as well as damages for other injuries including pressure sores, malnutrition, dehydration, infection, bone fractures, falls, concussions, lacerations, and medical errors.

Following the initial complaint and also after filing the second amended complaint,

appellees moved for class certification of the three claims. Appellants opposed the motions, and the parties briefed the contested issues. After conducting two hearings, the circuit court entered an order granting class certification on July 11, 2014. The court defined the class as,

All residents and estates of residents who resided at the Golden Living nursing homes in Arkansas from December 2006, through July 1, 2009. Excluded from the Class are (1) residents that have sued in the past or presently have lawsuits pending against any of the Defendants except the plaintiffs named herein; (2) all present and former employees, officers, directors, of Defendants; (3) any Class Member who timely elects to be excluded from the class; and (4) any employee of the Circuit Court of Ouachita County, Arkansas, or any officer of any court presiding over this action.

In its order, the court noted that the class exceeded 3,400 residents. Further, the circuit court found that commonality was established because the central issue affecting both the named plaintiffs and the putative class is whether appellants' alleged business practice of chronically understaffing the nursing homes breached the standard admission agreement and violated the Residents' Rights Act, as well as the ADTPA. In particular, the circuit court found that the issues common to all class members included,

A. Whether Defendants' standard admission agreement imposes minimum staffing requirements;
B. Whether Ark.Code Ann. § 20–10–1201, et seq. imposes minimum staffing requirements;
C. Whether Defendants failed to meet the minimum staffing requirements of Ark.Code Ann. § 20–10–1201, et seq., and the Defendants' standard admission agreement;
D. Whether failure to meet the minimum staffing requirements breaches the standard admission agreement;
E. Whether failure to meet minimum staffing requirements violates Ark.Code Ann. § 20–10–1201 et seq. ;
F. Whether failure to meet minimum staffing requirements of Ark.Code Ann. § 20–10–1201 et seq., is a violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and
G. Whether Leslie Campbell, Cindy Susienka, James Avery, Andrea Clark, David Mills, Julianne Williams, David Stordy, Larry McFadden, Angela Marlar, Billie Palculict, Sybil Adams, Troy Morris, Avie Singleton, Tracey Burlison, Mincie Thomas, Tommy Johnston, John McPherson, Laurie Herron, Margaret Green, Noreen Bailey, Marsha Parker, and Lisa Hensley are control persons as defined in Ark.Code Ann. § 4–88–113(d)(1) and therefore jointly and severally liable for the damages
...
4 cases
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2021
Rivera-Ceren v. Presidential Limousine & Auto Sales, Inc.
"...the evidence contained in the record to determine whether it supports the circuit court's decision. GGNSC Arkadelphia, LLC v. Lamb ex rel. Williams , 2015 Ark. 253, 465 S.W.3d 826. It is not appropriate for either this court or the circuit court to delve into the merits of the underlying cl..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina – 2023
Hooker v. The Citadel Salisbury LLC
"...and Arkansas state law for class certification (citing Tay-Tay, Inc. v. Young, 80 S.W.3d 365, 368 (Ark. 2002)). Subsequently, the courts in GGNSC and Robinson relied Beverly and granted similar motions for class certification under Arkansas's Rule 23. GGNSC, 465 S.W.3d at 831; Robinson, 519..."
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2016
SEECO, Inc. v. Snow
"...not reverse a circuit court's decision to grant or deny class certification absent an abuse of discretion. GGNSC Arkadelphia, LLC v. Lamb , 2015 Ark. 253, at 8, 465 S.W.3d 826, 831. When reviewing a circuit court's class-certification order, we review the evidence contained in the record to..."
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2016
Cach, LLC v. Echols
"...are (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, (4) adequacy, (5) predominance, and (6) superiority. GGNSC Arkadelphia, LLC v. Lamb , 2015 Ark. 253, at 9, 465 S.W.3d 826, 831. On appeal, appellants challenge commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority. See, e.g., P..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2021
Rivera-Ceren v. Presidential Limousine & Auto Sales, Inc.
"...the evidence contained in the record to determine whether it supports the circuit court's decision. GGNSC Arkadelphia, LLC v. Lamb ex rel. Williams , 2015 Ark. 253, 465 S.W.3d 826. It is not appropriate for either this court or the circuit court to delve into the merits of the underlying cl..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina – 2023
Hooker v. The Citadel Salisbury LLC
"...and Arkansas state law for class certification (citing Tay-Tay, Inc. v. Young, 80 S.W.3d 365, 368 (Ark. 2002)). Subsequently, the courts in GGNSC and Robinson relied Beverly and granted similar motions for class certification under Arkansas's Rule 23. GGNSC, 465 S.W.3d at 831; Robinson, 519..."
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2016
SEECO, Inc. v. Snow
"...not reverse a circuit court's decision to grant or deny class certification absent an abuse of discretion. GGNSC Arkadelphia, LLC v. Lamb , 2015 Ark. 253, at 8, 465 S.W.3d 826, 831. When reviewing a circuit court's class-certification order, we review the evidence contained in the record to..."
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2016
Cach, LLC v. Echols
"...are (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, (4) adequacy, (5) predominance, and (6) superiority. GGNSC Arkadelphia, LLC v. Lamb , 2015 Ark. 253, at 9, 465 S.W.3d 826, 831. On appeal, appellants challenge commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority. See, e.g., P..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex