Representative Matters

Business Commercial
• • Lizama v. Venus Laboratories, Inc., 679 F.Supp.3d 848 (2023): Buyer of laundry detergent and dish soap sufficiently alleged ascertainable loss, as required for claim under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
  • Smart Pharmacy, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., 660 F.Supp.3d 780 (2023): Retail and compounding pharmacies participating in program providing health care services to military personnel were required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing suit.
  • Provident Savings Bank, F.S.B. v. Focus Bank, 548 (2021): In an action between banks, check was not “altered” within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), precluding affirmative defense alleging breach of presentment warranty that check was not altered.
  • Primary Care Pharmacy, LLC. v. Express Scripts, Inc., 408 F.Supp.3d 1034 (2019): Pharmacy failed to perform under contract with pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), precluding recovery on breach of contract claim against PBM.
  • Dougherty v. Source Naturals, Inc., 148 F.Supp.3d 831 (2015): Nutritional Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) preempted state law claims challenging accuracy of nutrient content represented on multivitamin label.
  • Scottrade, Inc. v. Variant, Inc., 122 F.Supp.3d 869 (2015): Fact issues precluded summary judgment on a partner’s unjust enrichment claim against other partner and an inventor under Missouri law.
  • Bell v. May Dept. Stores Co., 6 S.W.3rd 871 (1999): Tortious interference with credit expectancy claim does not require pending credit application.
Employment Law
• • Williams v. Insomnia Cookies, LLC, F.Supp.3d, 2024 WL 473783 (2024): Two former managerial employees filed a class and collective action against employer, asserting wage and hour claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (MMWL) and the Missouri Unpaid Wage Law (MUWL).
  • Yates v. Symetra Life Insurance Co., 578 F.Supp.3d 1024 (2022): Husband’s fatal heroin overdose was “accident” for which employee could recover accidental death benefits from employer-sponsored ERISA plan.
  • Lee v. Mallinckrodt Enterprises, LLC, 456 F.Supp.3d 1089 (2020): Caucasian former employee failed to establish that the former employer’s proffered reason for terminating him was pretext for discrimination under Title VII.
  • Thompson v. Reliant Care Management Company, LLC, 356 F.Supp.3d 821 (2018): ERISA did not preempt employee’s breach of contract claim seeking recovery of severance pay and benefits under his employment agreement.
  • Gillick v. Brown, 212 F.Supp.3d 794 (2016): Arbitration agreement and governing statute provide for the court, not parties, to select arbitrator to resolve disputes between employer trustees and union trustees regarding proposed amendment to apprenticeship standards.
  • Stone v. McGraw-Hill Global Educ. Holdings, LLC, 126 F.Supp.3d 1077 (2015): African American former employee’s harassment allegations did not demonstrate hostile work environment.
Insurance
• • Seoul Taco Holdings, LLC v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 538 F.Supp.3d 926 (2021): Insured restaurant owners’ losses from forced shutdowns for COVID-19 were not coverable “physical losses” under policy absent any physical changes.
  • Dior v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 423 F.Supp.3d 706 (2019): Under Missouri law, the term “vehicle” in owned vehicle exclusion (OVE) to underinsured motorist-bodily injury coverage (UIM) included motor scooter.
  • State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Dado’s Café, Inc., 421 F.Supp.3d 720 (2019): Alleged offending conduct on part of insured’s employee was not an accident and did not constitute an occurrence that triggered coverage under policy.
  • Gillispie v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 112 F.Supp.3d 900 (2015): Auto policy did not permit stacking of UIM coverage on each of the four vehicles covered.
Intellectual Property
• • Phoenix Entertainment Partners, LLC v. Ryco Enterprises, LLC, 306 F.Supp.3d 1121 (2018): Trademarks and logos: Producer of karaoke accompaniment tracks failed to adequately allege activity distinct from alleged unauthorized copying to state Lanham Act claims.
  • Phoenix Entertainment Partners, LLC v. Kwench, LLC, 306 F.Supp.3d 1102 (2018): Trade names: Allegations were insufficient to state a claim for service mark infringement under Lanham Act.
  • Phoenix Entertainment Partners, LLC. Sports Legends, LLC, 306 F.Supp.3d 1112 (2018): Trademarks and logos: Karaoke jockey did not infringe karaoke accompaniment track producer’s service marks by displaying them during his shows.
  • Sudden Valley Supply, LLC v. Ziegmann, 91 F.Supp.3d 1146 (2015): Patents/consumer goods: Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in invalidity and noninfringement action regarding racoon trap.