Case Name: The CITY LIGHTING PRODUCTS GROUP, Respondent, v. RUBIN BROWN, LLP, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2012-10-09
Citations: 381 S.W.3d 385
Docket Number: No. ED 98230
Parties: The CITY LIGHTING PRODUCTS GROUP, Respondent, v. RUBIN BROWN, LLP, Appellant.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. P.J., ROY L. RICHTER, J. and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 381
Pages: 385–385

Head Matter:
The CITY LIGHTING PRODUCTS GROUP, Respondent, v. RUBIN BROWN, LLP, Appellant.
No. ED 98230.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Oct. 9, 2012.
Mark G. Arnold, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
William T. Burnet, Clayton, MO, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR. P.J., ROY L. RICHTER, J. and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
RubinBrown, LLP appeals the judgment of the trial court denying its Motion to Compel Arbitration. The trial court held the Engagement Letters were invalid because the agent who acted on behalf of the City Lighting Products Group ("CLP") lacked the authority to bind the corporation to arbitration, and CLP did not ratify the agreement to arbitrate.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the trial court did not err in denying the Motion to Compel Arbitration as there was substantial uncontroverted evidence the agreement to arbitrate was invalid. An opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b) Mo.R.Civ.P.(2012).