Arkansas Kenworth, LLC v. Jimmie Lee Gaston; And Gaston Trucking, Inc.

── Arkansas Kenworth, LLC v. Jimmie Lee Gaston; And Gaston Trucking, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 286 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISIONS III & IV No. CV-25-108 Opinion Delivered May 6, 2026 ARKANSAS KENWORTH, LLC APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION V. [NO. 60CV-24-3227] HONORABLE TIMOTHY DAVIS FOX, JIMMIE LEE GASTON; AND GASTON JUDGE TRUCKING, INC. APPELLEES AFFIRMED KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge This is an interlocutory appeal from a Pulaski County order denying appellant Arkansas Kenworth, LLC’s, motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration against appellees Jimmie Gaston and Gaston Trucking, Inc. (collectively, “Gaston”). On appeal, Kenworth argues that the circuit court erred in refusing to enforce a valid arbitration agreement and by directing that a jury trial be held to determine its enforceability. For the following reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s order denying Kenworth’s motion to compel. I. Relevant Facts This dispute arises from a contract between Kenworth and Gaston to repair a truck owned by Gaston. Kenworth is a full-service trucking dealership authorized to service trucks with PACCAR engines. Gaston operates a trucking business, Gaston Trucking, Inc. In 2015, Gaston purchased the truck from Kenworth. In April 2023, Gaston began experiencing problems with his truck and took it to Kenworth for repairs and paid Kenworth $7,598.03. A few months later, Gaston continued to have issues with the truck and took it back for repairs on August 30, 2023. Gaston was given multiple estimates for the repairs and made a $29,000 down payment. After Kenworth completed the repairs, Gaston was presented with a final invoice in the amount of $65,245.88, which was later negotiated down to $62,320. Gaston refused to pay, contending that the repairs were done in a negligent manner. As a result, Kenworth retained possession of the truck and asserted a statutory lien. On April 22, 2024, Gaston filed a complaint alleging breach of contract and tort of conversion, which included a demand for a jury trial. Kenworth responded with a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. In support of this motion, Kenworth attached a signed copy of repair order work authorization #256659 (“RO #256659”) that Kenworth claimed was signed by Gaston as the customer. Directly above Gaston’s signature, the order expressly provides that “THIS ORDER CONTAINS A BINDING ARBITRATION PROVISION WHICH MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE PARTIES.” (Emphasis in original.) The second page contains more detailed terms and conditions, including a provision that any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the order shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the “United States Arbitration Act (Title 9 of the United State[s] Code).” Gaston filed a response to the motion to compel arbitration arguing in part that he did not consent to arbitrate any dispute with Kenworth because he did not sign an arbitration clause, and he did not receive notice of an arbitration clause. Gaston attached his affidavit to his response. In the affidavit, Gaston averred that “[I]n looking at the 2 signature, I can tell that is not my signature, and I did not sign that particular repair order (RO #256659), which is attached to the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration as Exhibit 1.” However, Gaston admitted he had “agreed to have the work done for Repair Order # 256659,” and he admitted elsewhere that he had made