Court Opinion

ID: 9729077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:25:57.775008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:55.250290
License: Public Domain

RONALD L. WHITE, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, on this factual record, McDonald’s fails to overcome the presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling.1 McDonald’s bears the burden of showing that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction.2 The franchise agreement that the plaintiffs seek to discover could shed light on whether the franchise location constitutes an office and whether the franchisee is an agent of McDonald’s. If the terms of the agreement support McDonald’s position, McDonald’s need only have produced the document to satisfy its burden of proof. Absent such evidence, the trial court’s determination was not clearly erroneous. The high standard of review for extraordinary relief calls for deference to the trial court’s determination.

. Hill v. Kendrick, 192 S.W.3d 719, 720 (Mo. App.2006).

. Id.