Civil Practice and Procedure
John S. Sandberg, Esquire
Court enforcement of settlements. State of Missouri, ex rel., American Bouvier Des Flandres, Club, Inc. v. Honorable Michael T. Jamison, No. 1004047 (Mo. App. E.D., November 12, 2013), Van Amburg, J.
This writ of prohibition involved a purported settlement of the dispute that the plaintiffs had concerning their suspended membership from the relator’s organization. There was a disagreement as to whether or not the matter settled at mediation. The plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement, which was opposed. Arguments were made but they were not on the record and the judge granted the motion to enforce the settlement. A rehearing was also a repeat in that an additional argument was heard, it was not on the record and the motion to enforce settlement was enforced. Relator petitioned for a writ of prohibition.
Held: Writ of Prohibition made absolute. The court outlined the three ways a settlement could be enforced: (1) The court can hold an evidentiary hearing on the record and enter judgment. (2) The issue can be decided based on motion on the pleadings under Rule 55.27, or (3) It can be decided by summary judgment pursuant to Rule 74.04. Since none of the three methods were followed in the underlying decision, the court made the prohibition absolute.
No personal jurisdiction in Missouri over eBay seller from distant state. Andra v. Left Gate Property Holding, Inc., No. 99334 (Mo. App. E.D., November 26, 2013), Clayton, III, J.
The plaintiff bought a vehicle from the defendant on the eBay website. The vehicle was delivered to plaintiff in Missouri. After the vehicle underwent several repairs and failed the Missouri State Safety Inspection the plaintiff sued defendant for the cost of the repairs. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and the trial court granted the motion.
Held: Judgment affirmed. Due process requires sufficient minimum contacts and here the court found that the contacts were not sufficient. There was no evidence that the defendant engaged in contact to solicit from customers in Missouri. It did not advertise in Missouri nor did it have any employees or offices in Missouri. Based on this there was nothing to indicate Left Gate used eBay as a forum to establish regular business with a Missouri resident. Over the prior five years, less than 1% of the defendant’s business had been with Missouri residents.