Case Name: Derrick CAFFEY, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products, US, ASJ Enterprises, Inc., and Amirali S. Jabrani, Defendants/Counterclaimants/Cross-claimants, v. Reinette Saleeby, Crossclaim Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Respondent, and Gregory Fenlon, Cross-claim Defendant/Respondent/Cross-Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2009-01-27
Citations: 280 S.W.3d 103
Docket Number: Nos. ED 90611, ED 90700
Parties: Derrick CAFFEY, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products, US, ASJ Enterprises, Inc., and Amirali S. Jabrani, Defendants/Counterclaimants/Cross-claimants, v. Reinette Saleeby, Crossclaim Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Respondent, and Gregory Fenlon, Cross-claim Defendant/Respondent/Cross-Appellant.
Judges: Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 280
Pages: 103–103

Head Matter:
Derrick CAFFEY, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products, US, ASJ Enterprises, Inc., and Amirali S. Jabrani, Defendants/Counterclaimants/Cross-claimants, v. Reinette Saleeby, Crossclaim Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Respondent, and Gregory Fenlon, Cross-claim Defendant/Respondent/Cross-Appellant.
Nos. ED 90611, ED 90700.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Jan. 27, 2009.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 10, 2009.
Application for Transfer Denied May 5, 2009.
Kevin Hennessey, Chesterfield, MO, for appellant.
Joseph A. Fenlon, Clayton, MO, for respondent/cross-appellant.
Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Cross-claim defendants each appeal from a judgment in interpleader allocating attorney's fees between them. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Respondent's alternative motions to dismiss or to strike are denied as moot.