Elena Puga and Nicole Edwards, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Nephrite Fund I, LLC (2024)

Citation: Elena Puga and Nicole Edwards, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Nephrite Fund I, LLC (2024)
Parent Document: Elena Puga and Nicole Edwards, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Nephrite Fund I, LLC (2024)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2024-09-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10631430/elena-puga-and-nicole-edwards-... ↗

Full Text

1,269 chars

Appellants' motion to enforcement settlement, making it the proper subject for an interlocutory
appeal under Rule 74.01(b).
        8
          Appellants erroneously assert the facts of this case are uncontested, and thus, we should
not defer to the trial court's findings. As Respondents correctly point out, the underlying facts are
contested as the parties' arguments are centered around the trial court's factual determinations and
ultimate conclusion that there was no meeting of the minds as to the settlement agreement. Due
to Appellants' misapplication of our standard of review, they failed to follow the proper analytical
framework in their brief, and thus, Respondents assert this is fatal to Appellants' appeal. While an
appellant's "[f]ailure to follow the applicable framework means the appellant's argument is
analytically useless and provides no support for their challenge[,]" our courts prefer to "dispose of
a case following a meaningful consideration of the arguments rather than dismiss the matter due
to other deficiencies." Carpenter v. Carpenter, 689 S.W.3d 765, 773 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
                                                 10
                                            Analysis9

Other Sections in This Document (239)

Full Text