Case Name: GP & W, INC., d/b/a Center Marketing Company, Appellant, v. DAIBES OIL, LLC, Fred A. Daibes, and Munir Daibes, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2015-02-24
Citations: 463 S.W.3d 798
Docket Number: No. ED 101992
Parties: GP & W, INC., d/b/a Center Marketing Company, Appellant, v. DAIBES OIL, LLC, Fred A. Daibes, and Munir Daibes, Respondent.
Judges: Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 463
Pages: 798–798

Head Matter:
GP & W, INC., d/b/a Center Marketing Company, Appellant, v. DAIBES OIL, LLC, Fred A. Daibes, and Munir Daibes, Respondent.
No. ED 101992
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
FILED: February 24, 2015
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 30, 2015
Application for Transfer Denied June 30, 2015
John A. Kilo, 5840 Oakland Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63110, Kilo, Flynn, Billingsly, Trame & Brown, P.C., for Appellant.
Christopher Baxter Bent, 2200 Westport Plaza Drive, Suite 309, St. Louis, MO 63146, Law Office of Christopher Bent, LLC, for Respondents.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
GP & W, Inc., d/b/a Center Marketing Company (GP & W) appeals from the trial court's order setting aside a default judgment entered in favor of Daibes Oil, LLC, Fred A. Daibes, and Munir Daibes (Daibes Oil) and against GP & W on GP & Ws claim for breach of contract involving the purchase of gasoline in the amount of $651, 206.01, plus pre-prejudgment interest in the amount of $16,538.71, plus attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $10,159.40, totaling $677,904.12. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).