Case ID: sw3d_518/html/0287-01.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

ALBERICI CONSTRUCTORS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THAYER LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, PRR Processing, Inc., f/k/a Wings Enterprises, Inc., PRR Mining, LLC, f/k/a Upland Wings, Inc., James Kennedy, Nini Abboud and Rose Marie Abboud, Respondents, and Malin, Ltd., and Ulrich Krauskopf, Appellants.
    No. ED 104118
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
    FILED: May 16, 2017
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Timothy Paul Philipp atty for Malin, LTD and Ulrich Krauskopf, Duke Nguyen, Co-Counsel, ELPERS LAW FIRM, 748 Center Drive, P.O. Box 404, Ste Genevieve, MO 63760.
    ATTORNEY FOR ' RESPONDENT: Thayer Land Development Company, LLC, acting Pro Se, Alberici Group, c/o Terror Ladner, 8800 Page Avenue, St. Louis MO 63114.
    PRR Processing, Inc. F/K/A Wings Enterprises, Inc. acting Pro Se, SANGRA <& MOLLER LLP, c/o HARJ, Sangra/1000 Catherdral, 926 West Georgia St., Vancouver, BC V6C31-2.
    PRR MINING, LLC F/K/A Upland Wings, Inc. acting Pro Se.
    David L. Baylard, atty for James Kennedy, Nana Abboud and Rose Marie Ab-boud, 30 South McKinley Street, Union, MO 63084, BAYLARD, BILLINGTON, DEMPSEY & JENSEN, P.C.
    Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

Malin, Ltd., and Ulrich Krauskopf (collectively “Malin”) appeal from the “Order and Judgment” of February 5, 2016, denying Malin’s ‘Writ to the Court of Original Jurisdiction First and Amended Motion to Dissolve, Vacate, or Modify the Injunction.” We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).