Hermelin v. Bellin

Full title: Marc S. HERMELIN, Appellant, v. Jean M. BELLIN et al., Respondents.

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Date published: Jun 26, 2018

558 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)

Opinion

No. ED 105657

06-26-2018

Marc S. HERMELIN, Appellant, v. Jean M. BELLIN et al., Respondents.

Jonathan T. Sternberg, 2323 Grand Blvd, Suite 1100, Kansas City, MO. 64108, Mitchell A. Margo (Co-Counsel), Edward J. Sluys (Co-Counsel), 130 S. Bemiston, Suite 200, Clayton, MO. 63105, for appellant. Kenneth C. Brostron, Scott A. Pummell (Co-Counsel), 714 Locust Street, Saint Louis, Mo. 63101, Andrew Rothschild, Patrick J. Thornton (Co-Counsel), 600 Washington Ave, Suite 2500, Saint Louis, MO. 63101, Teresa D. Pupillo, 120 S. Central Ave, Suite 1500, St. Louis, Mo. 63105, Kurtis B. Reeg, Paul L. Knobbe (Co-Counsel), 8000 Maryland Ave, Suite 640, Saint Louis, MO. 63105 for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Jonathan T. Sternberg, 2323 Grand Blvd, Suite 1100, Kansas City, MO. 64108, Mitchell A. Margo (Co-Counsel), Edward J. Sluys (Co-Counsel), 130 S. Bemiston, Suite 200, Clayton, MO. 63105, for appellant.

Kenneth C. Brostron, Scott A. Pummell (Co-Counsel), 714 Locust Street, Saint Louis, Mo. 63101, Andrew Rothschild, Patrick J. Thornton (Co-Counsel), 600 Washington Ave, Suite 2500, Saint Louis, MO. 63101, Teresa D. Pupillo, 120 S. Central Ave, Suite 1500, St. Louis, Mo. 63105, Kurtis B. Reeg, Paul L. Knobbe (Co-Counsel), 8000 Maryland Ave, Suite 640, Saint Louis, MO. 63105 for respondent.

Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Angela T. Quigless, J., Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.Marc S. Hermelin appeals from the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment denying his claims for tortious interference with a contract and civil conspiracy against Respondents, who were eight employees of K-V Pharmaceutical Co., including six members of the Board of Directors and two corporate executives. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. 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 Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 84.16(b) (2018).