Waller v. YMCA of Greater St. Louis

Missouri Court of Appeals

Waller v. YMCA of Greater St. Louis

193 S.W.3d 364, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 464, 2006 WL 915722

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 2006

DocketNo. ED 86612

StatusPublished

This text of 193 S.W.3d 364 (Waller v. YMCA of Greater St. Louis) 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

Waller v. YMCA of Greater St. Louis, 193 S.W.3d 364, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 464, 2006 WL 915722 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Sharolynne Y. Waller (Waller) appeals pro se from a summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of the YMCA of Greater St. Louis (YMCA) in Waller’s cause of action alleging negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress but with conscious disregard. Waller also appeals from the trial court’s dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute her cause of action against Corey Rogers (Rogers). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in entering summary judgment because YMCA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). Because Rogers had not been served during the two years and seven months that the cause of action had been pending, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without prejudice for failure to prosecute Waller’s cause of action against Rogers. See Peet v. Randolph, 103 S.W.3d 872, 876 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Sharolynne Y. Waller (Waller) appeals pro se from a summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of the YMCA of Greater St. Louis (YMCA) in Waller’s cause of action alleging negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress but with conscious disregard. Waller also appeals from the trial court’s dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute her cause of action against Corey Rogers (Rogers). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in entering summary judgment because YMCA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). Because Rogers had not been served during the two years and seven months that the cause of action had been pending, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without prejudice for failure to prosecute Waller’s cause of action against Rogers. See Peet v. Randolph, 103 S.W.3d 872, 876 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 S.W.3d 364, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 464, 2006 WL 915722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waller-v-ymca-of-greater-st-louis-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack