Case ID: sw3d_546/html/0610-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PERFICIENT, INC., Appellant, v. CONTINUANT, INC., Respondent.
    No. ED 105743
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    Filed: February 20, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 22, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied May 22, 2018
    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).