From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haight v. Drivetime Car Sales Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
May 29, 2018
555 S.W.3d 478 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)

Opinion

WD 81164

05-29-2018

David HAIGHT, et ux., Respondents, v. DRIVETIME CAR SALES COMPANY, LLC d/b/a DriveTime, Appellant.

Bryce B. Bell and Mark W. Schmitz, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Respondents. Brian A. Jackson, Michael J. Cappo, and Molly S. Carella, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Appellant.


Bryce B. Bell and Mark W. Schmitz, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Respondents.

Brian A. Jackson, Michael J. Cappo, and Molly S. Carella, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Appellant.

Before Division IV: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge, and Gary D. Witt and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges

Order

Per Curiam:DriveTime Car Sales Company, LLC appeals from the ruling of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, denying its motion to compel David and Gifty Haight to arbitrate their claims against DriveTime for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. The Circuit Court’s ruling is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Haight v. Drivetime Car Sales Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
May 29, 2018
555 S.W.3d 478 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)
Case details for

Haight v. Drivetime Car Sales Co.

Case Details

Full title:David HAIGHT, et ux., Respondents, v. DRIVETIME CAR SALES COMPANY, LLC…

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Date published: May 29, 2018

Citations

555 S.W.3d 478 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)