Popular Leasing Wins Motion “Not to include NorVergence” “The Circuit Court of St. Louis County granted Popular Leasing's Second Motion for Reconsideration of the court's previous order regarding joining NorVergence as a party. In light of the bankruptcy proceedings involving NorVergence in New Jersey, the St. Louis court found "that NorVergence has no interest relating to the subject of the action [in Missouri] and is not, therefore, a necessary and indispensable party." In short, the St. Louis court agreed with Popular Leasing that Popular does not have to bring NorVergence into the ongoing cases. The court order only applies to the “attached list” of cases referenced in the order. Unfortunately, I have not received a list of those cases. I requested and received a copy of the order from Popular Leasing's counsel after my review of the file at the courthouse did not reveal any order on the second motion for reconsideration. Although I wish the court would have denied Popular Leasing's Second Motion for Reconsideration, I do not view it as a major setback. The Circuit Court has already dismissed a large number of Popular Leasing's lawsuits for lack of personal jurisdiction and will be conducting a hearing on November 14 to determine whether to dismiss another large number of cases. The cases that were previously dismissed were those in which the defendants had no contacts with the State of Missouri and the Equipment Rental Agreements were signed on behalf of NorVergence by NorVergence V.P. Edward Lucas. The court will next decide whether to extend the first dismissal order to cases in which the defendants had no contacts with the State of Missouri and the Equipment Rental Agreements were signed by a Popular Leasing employee on behalf of NorVergence. I believe there is a good chance that the court will rule in the defendants' favor after the November 14 hearing, because it would be unfair for a court to hold that when Party A agrees to enter a contract with Party B and, unbeknownst to Party A, Party B allows Party C to sign and accept the contract, Party C's mere signing of the document in Missouri justifies haling Party A into court in Missouri. If that were the law, inconvenient for a like Hawaii and Alaska might become litigation havens. Ronald J. Eisenberg, Esq. http://leasingnews.org/PDF/Popular_Leasing_Order.pdf
|
 |
| 
