BSCR Firm News/Blogs Feed

Scott Kreamer Named to 2024 Missouri Lawyers Media Business Defense POWER LIST

08 May 2024

For the fourth year in a row, Baker Sterchi Managing Member Scott Kreamer has earned recognition on Missouri Lawyers Media’s Business Defense POWER LIST.

The Business Defense POWER LIST features the 32 most powerful business defense attorneys in Missouri as identified by Missouri Lawyers Media’s editorial team after reviewing records of verdicts and settlements, interviewing attorneys and other leaders around the state, and examining Missouri Lawyers Weekly archives.

Kreamer is an experienced trial attorney, trying a wide variety of commercial, construction, financial services, insurance and product liability cases in state and federal courts. He has also served as national counsel for clients in the areas of toxic tort litigation and financial services.

Kreamer is a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, and a past chairman of the board and president of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, both of which are invitation-only organizations. He is currently serving as Vice President on the board of directors of Lawyers for Civil Justice, a coalition of defense bar organizations, law firms and corporations committed to reform in the civil justice system.

Sanction of Dismissal with Prejudice Approved for Repeated Discovery Violations

07 May 2024

ABSTRACT: A Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District ruling affirmed the dismissal of an action as a discovery sanction based on a “contumacious and deliberate disregard for the authority of the trial court.”

In Noble v. L.D. Enterprises, Inc. the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District affirmed a dismissal with prejudice for Plaintiff’s repeated refusal to engage in discovery.

Plaintiff Brandie Noble fell in a parking lot that was controlled by Defendant L.D. Enterprises on July 14, 2014, purportedly sustaining injuries that required medical treatment. Over four years later, Noble filed a lawsuit seeking damages for her injuries. This lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by Noble on November 2, 2020 and refiled on October 18, 2021, shortly before the expiration of the statute of limitations.

On May 25, 2022, L.D. Enterprises served their Opening Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff. Noble, who was represented by counsel, failed to respond within the time allotted, and L.D. filed a motion to compel. Noble also failed to respond to the motion to compel and the trial court ordered Noble to respond to the discovery requests within 30 days. Noble did not, however, answer the defendant’s discovery.

On December 13, 2022, L.D. filed a motion to dismiss Noble’s petition with prejudice as a sanction for her failure to respond to outstanding discovery. Again, Noble failed to respond. At the hearing for the motion, Noble delivered a “box of documents” to L.D., including incomplete responses to interrogatories. Neither the responses to the interrogatories nor requests for production were signed and no certificates of service were provided. The motion to dismiss was taken under advisement by the trial court.

L.D filed a renewed motion to dismiss Noble’s petition with prejudice alleging the discovery responses remained unverified, unsigned, and deficient in violation of the court’s earlier order. L.D. further noted the claim was now nearly nine years old and L.D. had been forced on three different occasions to file motions to obtain relief. Again, Noble failed to respond to the motion.

The trial court sustained the motion to dismiss, noting the failure of Noble to properly respond to court ordered discovery even while her claim faced dismissal with prejudice. Noble filed a motion for reconsideration arguing, among other things, that dismissal of her petition with prejudice was an excessive sanction. Noble stated such sanctions are reserved for when an "offending party exhibits repeated and protracted failure to comply with the rules of discovery." The trial court denied Noble’s motion to reconsider.

Noble appealed. The appellate court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Noble’s complaint with prejudice. The court held trial courts have an obligation to ensure discovery rules are followed and approved the discretion to impose sanctions that are “just.” The appellate court noted Noble repeatedly failed to comply with the rules of discovery constituting a “contumacious and deliberate disregard for the authority of the trial court.” As a result, the appellate court upheld the dismissal of Noble’s petition with prejudice.

Key Takeaways

The court’s opinion illustrates several key points for consideration by companies and their advisors alike:

A circuit court is vested with broad discretion in administering the rules of discovery and in determining the proper remedy—including dismissal with prejudice—for a party's non-compliance with court-ordered discovery.
Appellate courts will only review such decisions to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering such sanctions.
A “contumacious and deliberate disregard for the authority of the trial court” by either party is sufficient to uphold a decision to dismiss a claim with prejudice.

Baker Sterchi Welcomes Max Mosley in Kansas City

03 May 2024

Baker Sterchi welcomes Max Mosley as an associate in the firm’s Kansas City office, where his practice is focused on personal injury, trucking, premises liability and education law. Before his legal career, Mosley was a tenured English as a Second Language teacher with the New York City Department of Education, where he worked with the Internationals Network for Public Schools.

Mosley earned his law degree from the University of Missouri School of Law and holds an undergraduate degree from the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He earned his Master of Science in Education teaching English to speakers of other languages from Long Island University-Brooklyn and is licensed to practice in Missouri.

FTC's New Rule Effectively Bans Non-Competes – What Now?

03 May 2024

ABSTRACT: A new FTC rule bans most non-competes, with the stated objectives of generating over 8,500 new businesses annually, raising wages, lowering healthcare cost, and boosting innovation. The Biden Administration views this as part of a broader effort to address anticompetitive practices. Legal challenges are underway by various business groups; however, the Rule maintains substantial support in other quarters.

The Federal Trade Commission issued the Non-Compete Clause Rule (the “Rule”) on April 23, 2024, by narrow 3-2 vote, banning a vast majority of non-competes nationwide. Both existing and new non-competes are no longer enforceable. Limited exceptions exist for non-competes with “senior executives”—defined as workers earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in policy-making positions—and non-competes created subsequent the sale of a business, which may still be enforced. The Rule states that all employers with now unenforceable non-competes are required to provide notice to affected employees that the non-compete is now void.

The Rule was originally posted for comment in January 2023, receiving over 26,000 comments during the required 90-day public comment period—more than 25,000 of which support this proposed ban. The FTC found non-competes “an unfair method of competition, and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act,” noting there are alternatives to non-compete agreements, such as trade secret laws and non-disclosure agreements; notably, nearly 95 percent of workers with non-compete agreements also have non-disclosure agreements. The FTC argues companies can retain workers previously subject to non-competes “on the merits,” by raising wages, increasing benefits, and improving their work environment. Other groups in favor of this ban argue non-competes restrict job mobility, depress wages, and quash innovation by limiting employees seeking to start their own companies.

Importantly, the Rule traces back to the Biden Administration’s 2021 “Executive Order on Promotion Competition in the American Economy.” That Executive Order encourages all relevant federal agencies to address anticompetitive practices within their scope of jurisdiction. Because of this, opponents argue that the FTC, with this Rule, extends past its jurisdictional reach.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with other prominent groups like the Business Roundtable, immediately sued the FTC in federal court in Texas after the announcement. The USCC contends the FTC lacks authority to promulgate this Rule, stating this type of monumental change in business practice must to be passed by Congressional vote instead. Additionally, many critics state the Rule imposes extraordinary burdens on businesses in protecting their trade secrets, will cause inflation to skyrocket due to predicted wage increases, and ignores state sovereignty since existing state laws already govern non-competes and should continue to do so. While many states have various laws limiting non-competes in some way, only four have banned them entirely prior to this Rule.

The lawsuits could take months (or longer) to unfold and may put the status of non-competes, and the employees that hold them, in limbo. The Rule, while final, is not effective until 120-days after the date of its publication in the Federal Register. Currently, the Rule is scheduled for publication on May 7, 2024, putting the Rule into effect September 4, 2024. Therefore, it is vital for employers to assess what steps must be taken now to prepare. Employers not only must inform their current employees of any applicable changes, but must also shift their hiring and retention strategies.

Key Takeaways

Even in light of current challenges, employers should remain proactive in preparing for the Rule’s publication and enforcement by:

Evaluating current employee contracts for non-compete provisions which violate the Rule, assessing whether revision or rescission is required;
Identify ways to meaningful meet employer’s goals (protect proprietary information; evaluate trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, confidentiality practices; etc.) while balancing employee satisfaction and allegiance (performance-focused incentives; benefits; work environment/culture; etc.); and
Begin drafting requisite (per the Rule) correspondence to current and former employees about any non-competes no longer enforceable.

Andrew Snively Joins Baker Sterchi in Kansas City

02 May 2024

Andrew Snively has joined Baker Sterchi’s Kansas City office as an associate, with a practice focused on insurance coverage, bad faith claims and personal injury defense for clients across various industries, including banking, food and beverage, and insurance. As an attorney who embarked on a legal career later in life, he brings a wealth of experience to his practice, having previously served in the United States Air Force as a Financial Budget Analyst.

Snively earned his law degree from Pepperdine Caruso School of Law and holds an undergraduate degree from Park University. Recently admitted to practice law in Missouri, Snively was a 2023 Baker Sterchi summer law clerk.

Litigation Paralegal, Kansas City

26 Apr 2024

Our Kansas City office is seeking a highly motivated and skilled litigation paralegal. View the job description here.

Jim Jarrow to Co-Present "Hot Takes" Session at ALFA Transportation Seminar

26 Apr 2024

On May 3, Baker Sterchi Member Jim Jarrow will co-present a session titled “How A Mongoose Eats A Reptile: Effectively Dismantling Plaintiff’s Reptile Attack” at the ALFA International (ALFA) Transportation Practice Group Seminar in Colorado Springs, Colorado. This “Hot Takes” session will explore strategies for countering the Reptile method, followed by a five-minute roundtable discussion.

Based in Kansas City, Jarrow primarily defends personal injury matters in the transportation and retail industries. With a 30-year career, he is a seasoned trial lawyer with a track record of trying over 100 cases. Jarrow serves as a co-chair of the Baker Sterchi Trucking Practice Group and a steering committee member of the ALFA Transportation Practice Group.

Baker Sterchi is the Kansas City, Missouri and Overland Park, Kansas, member firm of ALFA International, a premier global legal network of 140 independent law firms. The network provides educational programs across various practice areas for attorneys and clients associated with its member firms.

Legal Administrative Assistant, St. Louis

25 Apr 2024

Our St. Louis office is seeking a highly motivated and skilled legal administrative assistant. View the job description here.

Michael Shunk to Co-Present at ALFA Insurance Regional Seminar

25 Apr 2024

On April 25, Baker Sterchi Member Michael Shunk is co-presenting the session, “Declaratory Judgment Actions: Strategic Considerations Before Filing,” at the ALFA International (ALFA) Insurance Practice Group Regional Seminar in New York, New York. The session will address the critical factors that often impact the decision to proceed with a declaratory judgment action, while also providing insight and updates on recent developments and trends in this law area.

Shunk's practice centers around the defense of individuals, insurance carriers, and corporate clients in a range of cases, including personal injury, contract and commercial disputes, construction defect, and insurance coverage and bad faith issues. He is a member of the ALFA International Insurance Practice Group and co-chair of the Baker Sterchi Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Practice Group.

Michelle Meloche Appointed to Leadership of PLDF Healthcare Committee

24 Apr 2024

Baker Sterchi associate Michelle Meloche has been named co-vice chair of the Professional Liability Defense Federation (PLDF) Healthcare Malpractice Claims Committee.

Meloche has been a dedicated member of this Healthcare Committee since joining PLDF last year. In her new role, she will be contributing to publications, responding to member inquiries and presenting at PLDF’s annual meeting.

In addition to her role with PLDF, Meloche is actively engaged in several other healthcare and legal organizations. She is a member of the American Bar Association’s Health Law Section, the American Health Lawyers Association, and DRI’s Medical Liability and Health Care Law Committee.

As a civil litigation attorney, Meloche defends healthcare providers against medical malpractice claims. She earned her law degree from Saint Louis University School of Law with a concentration in Health Law, and she holds an M.P.H. in Health Management & Policy from Saint Louis University. Meloche is licensed to practice in Missouri and Illinois.

PLDF’s mission is to enhance the stature and effectiveness of professional liability defense professionals through education, training and the exchange of information.