Case Name: PERFICIENT, INC., Appellant, v. CONTINUANT, INC., Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2018-02-20
Citations: 546 S.W.3d 610
Docket Number: No. ED 105743
Parties: PERFICIENT, INC., Appellant,
v.
CONTINUANT, INC., Respondent.
Judges: Before James M. Dowd, C.J., Lisa S. Van Amburg, J., and Colleen Dolan, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 546
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
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

Opinion:
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).