Case Name: Tara HAYDEN, Appellant, v. IN & OUT AUTO PLAZA, LLC, et al., Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-05-03
Citations: 496 S.W.3d 597
Docket Number: No. ED 102799
Parties: Tara HAYDEN, Appellant, v. IN & OUT AUTO PLAZA, LLC, et al., Respondents.
Judges: Before Philip M. Hess,. P. J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 496
Pages: 597–598

Head Matter:
Tara HAYDEN, Appellant, v. IN & OUT AUTO PLAZA, LLC, et al., Respondents.
No. ED 102799
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: May 3, 2016
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 30, 2016
Application for Transfer Denied September 20, 2016
Robert Caldwell, Jr., Martin L. Perron, McMichael & Logan, 12166 Old Big Bend Road, Suite 99, Kirkwood, Missouri 63122, for Appellant.
John J. Greffet, Jr., Bradley R. Han-smann, Brown & James, P.C., 800 Market Street, 11th Floor, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, Jennifer A. Briner, Thomas J. Frit-zlen, Jr., Martin, Leigh, Laws & Fritzlen, P.C., 13321 North Outer Forty Road, Suite 700, Town and Country, Missouri 63107, for Respondents.
Before Philip M. Hess,. P. J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Tara Hayden (Appellant) appeals the order of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying Appellant's motion for attorney's fees. Appellant prevailed in an action against In & Out Auto Plaza, LLC and Alina Bakieva (collectively, Respondents), alleging, among other claims, violations of Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). The trial court denied Appellant's post-trial motion for attorney's fees. In three points on appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to award attorney's fees (Point I and II) and by failing to apply the lodestar formula in calculating Appellant's attorney's fees (Point III). We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).