Hayden v. In & Out Auto Plaza, LLC

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hayden v. In & Out Auto Plaza, LLC

496 S.W.3d 597, 2016 WL 2338675, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 432

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 3, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102799

StatusPublished

This text of 496 S.W.3d 597 (Hayden v. In & Out Auto Plaza, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hayden v. In & Out Auto Plaza, LLC, 496 S.W.3d 597, 2016 WL 2338675, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 432 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Tara Hayden (Appellant) appeals the order of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying Appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees. Appellant prevailed in an action against In & Out Auto Plaza, LLC [598]*598and Alina Bakieva (collectively, Respondents), alleging, among other claims, violations of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). The trial court denied Appellant’s post-trial motion for attorney’s fees. In three points on appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to award attorney’s fees (Point I and II) and by failing to apply the lodestar formula in calculating Appellant’s attorney’s fees (Point III). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Tara Hayden (Appellant) appeals the order of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying Appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees. Appellant prevailed in an action against In & Out Auto Plaza, LLC [598]*598and Alina Bakieva (collectively, Respondents), alleging, among other claims, violations of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). The trial court denied Appellant’s post-trial motion for attorney’s fees. In three points on appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to award attorney’s fees (Point I and II) and by failing to apply the lodestar formula in calculating Appellant’s attorney’s fees (Point III). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 S.W.3d 597, 2016 WL 2338675, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayden-v-in-out-auto-plaza-llc-moctapp-2016.