Case Name: Angela MACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. THE EASON LAW FIRM, LLC f/k/a Eason & Voytas, LLC, James Eason, and Richard Voytas, Defendants/Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2015-11-17
Citations: 482 S.W.3d 430
Docket Number: ED 102942
Parties: Angela MACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. THE EASON LAW FIRM, LLC f/k/a Eason & Voytas, LLC, James Eason, and Richard Voytas, Defendants/Respondents.
Judges: Before Lisa S. Van Amburg, C.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 482
Pages: 430–431

Head Matter:
Angela MACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. THE EASON LAW FIRM, LLC f/k/a Eason & Voytas, LLC, James Eason, and Richard Voytas, Defendants/Respondents.
ED 102942
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
Filed: November 17, 2015
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 4, 2016
Application for Transfer Denied March 1, 2016
Dennis J. Barton III, 17600 Chesterfield Airport Road, Suite 201, Chesterfield, MO 63005, for Plaintiff/Appellant.
Brent W. Baldwin, Michael B. Flynn, 100 N. Broadway, Suite 1580, St. Louis, MO 63102, for Defendant/Respondent Ea-son Law Firm.
Kenneth K. Vuylsteke, 110 E. Lockwood Avenue #150, St. Louis, MO 63119, for Defendant/Respondent James Eason.
John S. Sandberg, Aaron D. French, 600 Washington Avenue, 15th Floor, St. Louis, MO 63101, for Defendant/Respondent Richard Voytas.
Before Lisa S. Van Amburg, C.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Angela Mack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (Appellant), appeals from the trial court's order denying her Amended Motion for Class Certification. 'We have'reviéwed the briéfs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant class certification. An extended 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 Missouri .Rule of Givil Procedure 84.16(b).