Perficient, Inc. v. Continuant, Inc.

Full title: PERFICIENT, INC., Appellant, v. CONTINUANT, INC., Respondent.

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Date published: Feb 20, 2018

546 S.W.3d 610 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)

Opinion

No. ED 105743

02-20-2018

PERFICIENT, INC., Appellant, v. CONTINUANT, INC., Respondent.

Daniel C. Cox, Nino Przulj, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Keith A. Rabenberg, Micah T. Uptegrove, St. Louis, MO, For Defendant/Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Daniel C. Cox, Nino Przulj, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff/Appellant.

Keith A. Rabenberg, Micah T. Uptegrove, St. Louis, MO, For Defendant/Respondent.

Before James M. Dowd, C.J., Lisa S. Van Amburg, J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.Perficient, Inc. ("Perficient") appeals the trial court’s grant of Continuant, Inc.’s ("Continuant’s") motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction in a breach of contract and unjust enrichment action. On appeal, Perficient argues that Missouri courts have personal jurisdiction over Continuant because Continuant has consented to all suits "arising out of or relating to its transaction of business [in Missouri]" by registering to transact business in Missouri and appointing a registered agent in the state. We affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).