by Christine Simmons, Missouri Lawyers Weekly

Firms often say when a prominent partner leaves that the exit was “amicable.”

The firm formerly known as Rabbitt, Pitzer & Snodgrass isn’t bothering with that pretense.

The firm sued Dan Rabbitt Wednesday, two days after he exited to start The Rabbitt Law Firm in West St. Louis County. Rabbitt, Pitzer & Snodgrass, which is changing its name to Pitzer Snodgrass, claims the lawyer owes $235,992 in accordance with a stock purchase agreement. The firm also claims in the lawsuit filed in St. Louis Circuit Court that Rabbitt urged two associates to leave with him and take confidential client records.

When reached for comment, Rabbitt referred to his attorney, Gerard Carmody of Carmody MacDonald.

In a statement, Carmody said the lawsuit was prompted by Rabbitt choosing not to retire.

“It’s unfortunate that the firm founded by Dan Rabbitt in 1991 has elected to file this action against him simply because Dan did not want to be forced into retirement.  Dan is one of the finest attorneys in St. Louis and has upheld all the terms of his contract with his former firm,” said Carmody, speaking on behalf of Rabbitt and the two associates named in the lawsuit, Marcus Raymond and Claire Wasson.

Carmody added that, “it is sad that after 20 years of practicing side-by-side with his former colleagues, they have opted to take this course of action.”
In the lawsuit, Rabbitt Pitzer claims the 2005 stock purchase agreement, signed shortly after Rabbitt turned 65, allowed Rabbitt to push off the date of his retirement and let the firm purchase firm stock from him.

The agreement says that, should Rabbitt leave the firm to continue a St. Louis practice elsewhere, he would pay the firm for each share previously paid for by the firm. The repayment is due April 3 — 90 days from Rabbitt’s departure, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also claims:

• Rabbitt and the two associates removed large amounts of confidential and proprietary law firm property. Raymond and Wasson sent dozens of e-mails from their firm’s e-mail accounts to personal e-mail accounts, and Raymond attached several files that contained deposition outlines, draft pleadings, protective orders, draft settlement agreements and releases, and other documents.
• Rabbitt urged Raymond and Wasson to take the confidential files after being solicited to leave the firm for his new firm. None of the clients whose confidential information was taken had consented to the removal.
• Rabbitt solicited clients to leave Rabbitt Pitzer and allow him to continue to represent them at his new firm. Rabbitt Law Firm began to solicit clients using letterhead and a logo that’s similar to that of Rabbitt Pitzer.

“Rabbitt and The Rabbitt Law Firm knew, or through reasonable diligence should have known, that its actions were misleading and reasonably likely to deceive customers,” the suit says.

Steven Hughes, managing partner of the new firm Pitzer Snodgrass, said it was a surprise when Rabbitt left. He said he would not comment further and referred questions to the firm’s attorney, Ed Dowd, of Dowd Bennett, who declined to comment.

Copyright 2011 Missouri Lawyers Media

by Rob Hurtt, St. Louis Business Journal
Date: Friday, December 31, 2010, 5:00am CST

When Anheuser-Busch returned to Vietnam in 2008, it tapped Vietnam War veteran William Franke, founder and CEO of Gannon International, to lead the charge.

Franke’s business, one of St. Louis’ largest private companies, became the brewer’s exclusive distributor in the country and planned to build a $90 million Budweiser brewery outside Ho Chi Minh City.

Now, a complex lawsuit between Gannon, the former CEO of its Vietnam operations and a Seattle-based private equity firm has led A-B to drop Gannon as its distributor and put those brewery plans on hold. The delay could allow A-B InBev’s competitors to gain a stronger foothold in one of Southeast Asia’s fastest-growing markets.

Gannon filed its lawsuit May 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. According to court documents, the dispute traces back to November 2009, when Walter Blocker, CEO of Gannon Vietnam, went looking for additional financial backing.

Blocker reached out to private equity firm Ignition Capital, based in Seattle. Ignition signed a non-binding letter of intent with Gannon Hong Kong, a Gannon International subsidiary that owns Gannon Vietnam.

The proposed deal called for an investment of up to $25 million, and Ignition would receive a 33 percent ownership stake in exchange. On March 1, two Ignition-affiliated funds extended a $1.6 million bridge loan to Gannon Hong Kong.

Blocker’s duties also included serving as chairman of Gannon Brewery Joint Stock Company, which owned the Vietnamese brewing license.

In a letter dated March 23, Blocker contacted Ignition about investing directly in that entity. According to the court filing, Blocker wrote that if the Joint Stock Company did not immediately receive money to make overdue payments, it risked losing its land lease and investment license.

In the meantime, Gannon Hong Kong defaulted on its bridge loan, according to documents Ignition filed with the court. Ignition then terminated its letter of intent.

On April 19, Sandalwood, a Hong Kong corporation affiliated with Ignition, agreed to pay about $1.4 million for 1,093 unpaid founding shares of the Brewery Joint Stock Company, and it gained more than 65 percent of the total ownership interest.

Ten days later, Blocker resigned from his position as chairman of Gannon Vietnam, where he had been since 2000. He remained on the board of the Brewery Joint Stock Company, now owned by Sandalwood.

Shortly thereafter, Gannon International and its subsidiaries filed suit against Blocker, Ignition and Sandalwood. The lawsuit claims, among other things, that Blocker breached his fiduciary duties, misappropriated $415,000 of company funds and is attempting to take Gannon’s investment in the Brewery Joint Stock Company.

“The allegations are completely baseless,” said James O’Brien, an attorney with Lewis, Rice & Fingersh who is representing Blocker. “Unfortunately for us, there have been so many motions in this case that we’ve not gotten to the merits yet. If the case goes on here, it’ll become clear that they’ve taken some real liberties. We look forward to complete vindication.”

Franke was unavailable for comment.

Judge Jean Hamilton has set a Jan. 26 scheduling conference between the parties to establish a trial date.

Attorneys Ed Dowd and John Comerford of Dowd Bennett LLP are representing Gannon.

Armstrong Teasdale’s Dan Nelson, Stephen Limbaugh Sr. and Daniel Sakaguchi are serving as local attorneys for Ignition and Sandalwood. Sakaguchi said the law firm would not comment on the pending suit.

Lewis Rice’s Barry Short and Andrew Buchanan are working with O’Brien on Blocker’s representation.

HOT VIETNAM

While its Vietnam brewery remains on hold, A-B InBev continues to distribute beer, brewed in Los Angeles, throughout Vietnam. However, according to the Financial Times, its distributor now is Redwood Holdings US, a Delaware-based LLC incorporated in April.

A-B’s competitors continue to battle for position in the nation’s booming market for beer.

From 2004 to 2009, beer sales volume at Vietnam restaurants, cafes and other outlets grew 56 percent to 1.6 billion liters, according to market research firm Euromonitor International. Sales are expected to continue to grow as the nation’s special consumption tax on beer declines from 75 percent in 2009 to 30 percent in 2012.

The country estimates it produced about 2.6 billion liters of beer in 2010, and it anticipates production to reach 4 billion liters by 2015.

Although cheap local beer currently dominates in Vietnam, the high-end market is growing as Vietnamese incomes rise.

Last year, competitor SABMiller bought out its local partner in a joint venture and launched Miller High Life there. Analysts expect the South African brewer to rapidly increase its investment in the country over the next couple years.

Also within the past year, Danish brewer Carlsberg upped its share in Habeco, Vietnam’s second-largest brewer, and Japanese brewer Sapporo signed a $25.4 million deal to acquire a 65 percent interest in Kronenbourg Vietnam. Sapporo said constructing a new brewery will be one of its first pieces of business.

In August, a joint venture led by Singapore-based Asia Pacific Breweries Ltd. opened a new factory in central Vietnam, and it will spend $100 million to grow its capacity over the next two years.

“Vietnam is one of the largest beer markets in Asia Pacific and of the highest growth potential,” said Christopher Kidd, regional director of APB.

Copyright 2010 American City Business Journals, Inc.

Dispute over sales agreement led to action

By Anna Vitale, Missouri Lawyers Weekly

A St. Louis County jury awarded Creve Coeur-based Monsanto a verdict of more than $7.6 million June 28 in the company’s suit against Houston-based ConocoPhillips.

According to Monsanto’s petition, Conoco fell short in delivering petroleum coke that was promised in a sales agreement. Petroleum coke is produced during the oil-refining process and is used by Monsanto to make Roundup herbicides.

The sales agreement stated that Conoco was to deliver at least 64,000 short tons of petroleum coke in 2005 and 2006, claimed Monsanto, but Conoco only delivered about 52,500 tons in 2005 and about 30,700 in 2006. In total, that amounts to a shortfall of about 45,000 tons over the two-year period.

Because of the shortfall, Monsanto claimed it had to seek out other, more expensive providers.

In Conoco’s answer, it said Monsanto didn’t inform it of the alleged breach of contract in a timely manner or give it a chance to make right by the agreement.

Monsanto was represented by James Bennett, Gabriel Gore and Jennifer Kingston, of Dowd Bennett in Clayton.

Bob Peirce, a spokesman for Monsanto, said the company was looking forward to continuing to develop Roundup herbicides.

“The jury clearly understood the issues involved when ConocoPhillips did not supply us with the amount of petroleum coke in 2005 and 2006 called for by the contract,” he said in a written statement, “so that we had to purchase the material elsewhere for a higher price.”

Conoco was represented by Jeffrey Parsons, of Beirne Maynard & Parsons in Houston, and John Reynolds, of Tueth, Keeney, Cooper, Mohan & Jackstadt in Clayton, at trial. Parsons did not respond to requests for comment.

Ian P. Cooper, also of Tueth, Keeney, Cooper, Mohan & Jackstadt, wrote Conoco’s answer to Monsanto’s petition. He said all media requests should be directed to the company. A message left on ConocoPhillip’s media line was not returned.

$7.6 million jury verdict
Breach of contract
Case Number/Date: 08SL-CC-02002/June 28, 2010
Court: St. Louis County Circuit Court
Judge: John F. Kintz
Plaintiff Expert: Sean Durkin, Chicago (economics)
Caption: Monsanto Co. and P4 Production, LLC v. ConocoPhillips Co.
Plaintiffs’ Attorneys: James Bennett, Gabriel Gore and Jennifer Kingston, Dowd Bennett, Clayton
Defendant’s Attorneys: Jeffrey Parsons, Beirne Maynard & Parsons, Houston; John Reynolds and Ian P. Cooper, Tueth, Keeney, Cooper, Mohan & Jackstadt, Clayton

Copyright 2010  Missouri Lawyers Media

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A federal judge has rejected a Springfield woman’s claim that her monkey was a service animal and that she was disabled.

Debby Rose had sued the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, CoxHealth hospital and a Springfield Wal-Mart because she was not allowed to take the monkey, named Richard, into restaurants and other businesses.

The Springfield News-Leader reported that Rose claimed she was covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act because she suffered from anxiety and agoraphobia. She said she needed Richard to calm her.

But federal Judge Richard Dorr ruled Thursday that the monkey was not a service animal and that Rose was not disabled.

The judge noted that Rose was able to marry three times, raise six children and work several jobs despite claiming to suffer from the disabilities since the 1970s.

A Springfield woman who fought to have her monkey declared a service animal said Thursday she was shocked a federal judge rejected her lawsuit.

“It’s devastating; it’s devastating,” Debby Rose said of the outcome of her lawsuit against the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, Cox Health and Wal-Mart East.

“I feel like I’m discriminated against in Greene County. What can I say?”

Federal Judge Richard Dorr ruled that Rose’s monkey — Richard — was not a service animal and that she was not disabled.

Rose and her attorney could appeal in an effort to obtain a service animal status for Richard so she can take him in restaurants and other places. “I can only pray that we do,” she said. “It’s all up to my attorney, of course.”

James Arneson, the attorney who represents Rose, said he does not comment on judges’ rulings.

The judge issued a summary judgment — a ruling without going to trial — about Richard’s status, denying Rose’s claim that she is covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Rose originally filed the case in Greene County Circuit Court. It sought damages, compliance with the ADA and expenses related to the lawsuit.

She claimed to suffer from agoraphobia and anxiety.

Dorr noted in his ruling that although Rose claimed to suffer from the disabling conditions since the 1970s, she married three times, raised six children, worked at a variety of jobs, owned an animal rescue refuge, moved in and out of Missouri several times and was not diagnosed until 2006.

Rose disputed that date Thursday, saying she was diagnosed in 2001.

The judge also ruled the Springfield-Greene County Health Department acted properly in determining the Bonnet Macaque monkey Rose purchased in 2004 was not a service animal and by warning businesses that they may violate state food codes if they admitted Richard.

Wal-Mart refused to allow Rose in stores after receiving the letter and Cox Health determined that allowing a monkey into its facilities could pose a threat from transmission of herpes B infection.

The hospital said Rose could attend classes at Cox College, but could not bring Richard with her.

Kevin Gipson, director of the health department, said the judge’s ruling is logical. The department took a stance that a monkey was not a suitable service animal.

“It just kind of sustained what our feelings were,” Gipson said.

He added that area residents who used recognized service animals don’t need to be concerned about the ruling.

“It really doesn’t affect trained service animals,” he said.

In the future, local health departments may not have to deal with cases such as Richard’s. That’s because the federal government is considering stricter definition of what a service animal is to eliminate exotic animals from that designation, Gipson said.

Rose claimed Richard was a service animal because he did such things as “breaking the spell” and “breaking off the focus.” But the judge found Richard’s activities did not address any disabilities Rose might have.

Instead, Richard offered Rose comfort as a pet, the judge ruled.

Rose said not being able to take Richard with her restricts her activities.

“I won’t be able to function,” she said. “I can’t say anymore. I can’t do it without him.”

“I won’t be able to function. I can’t say anymore. I can’t do it without him. “

A Cole County judge said three administrative law judges can’t be terminated from their positions for budgetary reasons.

Earlier this year, five administrative law judge positions were dismissed from their posts. Four of the judges were let go, and a retiring judge was not replaced. Gov. Jay Nixon said the move was meant as a cost-cutting measure in the midst of a tough budgetary situation.

But three of the judges – Henry Herschel, John A. Tackes and Matthew Murphy – sued to keep their positions. They argued that they could only be dismissed under a specific system set up in the state’s statutes.

In a decision released Wednesday, Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem issued a permanent injunction that keeps the three men in their positions as administrative law judges. The ruling also forces the state to provide them with roughly $39,514 in legal fees.

“Once appointed and assuming they remain otherwise qualified to serve, an administrative law judge appointed pursuant to [state statutes] may be removed only by the Governor after two or more votes of no confidence by the Committee or by a vote of non-retention taken at the end of their term,” Beetem wrote in a 10-page decision.

Beetem went on to say that the “public interest favors adjudication of worker’s compensation claims by an independent administrative judiciary.”

“The termination of one’s appointment as an administrative law judge, prior to the expiration of his term and without reliance upon the statutory process violates one’s right to procedural due process arising under the U.S. Constitution,” Beetem wrote.

John Comerford, a St. Louis attorney who handled the case for the three attorneys, said Wednesday afternoon that he was pleased with the decision.

“We think it’s a very fair result,” Comerford said. “We think that the statute is clear and the Legislature’s intent that you can read in this statute is clear … They didn’t want administrative law judges to be removed in the budget process. And the judge agreed with us, and we’re very happy with the result.”

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Chris Koster was not available as of press time. And a spokesman for Nixon referred questions to the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. Spokes-woman Amy Susan said the department is reviewing the decision.

Comerford said he didn’t know whether there would be an appeal of the permanent injunction. He said he hasn’t had any conversation with Ron Holliger, a former Missouri Court of Appeals Western District judge who now works for Koster. Holliger served as the attorney defending the state in this case.

“I don’t know honestly what their intentions are,” Comerford said.

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the city of Arnold’s use of red-light traffic cameras. But opponents of the traffic cameras haven’t given up yet.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert III, of the Eastern District of Missouri, granted the motion by the city and co-defendant American Traffic Solutions, or ATS, for summary judgment on the grounds that the city’s ordinance governing red-light cameras is civil in nature. The ordinance would have had to be criminal in nature for the plaintiffs to be able to pursue their due process claims.

ATS owns and operates the cameras in Arnold and in the St. Louis area. The company, in exchange for the municipalities using its cameras, receives a percentage of the fine assessed against the drivers who run the red lights.

The lawsuit still has the potential to proceed in state court regarding its claims for abuse of process, fraudulent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy. But Mummert declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims because they raise novel issues of state law.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Kevin Slaten, of the Slaten Law Firm, said they are considering appealing the judge’s ruling, filing the claims in state court or filing a class action against municipalities that use red-light cameras.

Calls to lead plaintiffs’ attorney Chet Pleban, of Pleban & Associates, were not returned.

Slaten said he believed the next issue in the litigation challenging the red-light cameras will revolve around the Missouri Department of Revenue’s being required by law to assess two points to any moving traffic violation.

“The municipalities are calling the [red-light camera tickets] nonmoving violations and said points won’t be assessed on licenses,” he said. “So what is it, then? People aren’t moving when they run a red light? We have a letter from the Department of Revenue saying that the municipalities had no authorization to create a statute that is in contradiction to state statute.”

Slaten said the issue could be raised if someone decided to challenge the department for not assessing the points.

The defense attorney for Arnold, Edward Dowd, of Dowd Bennett, said he feels that the court has set up good precedent for future cases.

“Hopefully, this is the end of claims saying the municipality is a racketeering-influenced organization when it’s trying to protect its citizens,” he said. “There is no room for those types of pleadings, in my opinion.”

The city attorney for Arnold, Robert Sweeney, echoed Dowd’s opinion.

“My thought at this point is that [the multiple red-light camera] ordinances are more similarly related than different,” he said. “As such, this ruling is going to have a chilling effect regarding challenges to other ordinances.”

In February 2008, four Missouri residents and one business sued ATS, the city of Arnold, the mayor of Arnold, City Council members, the police chief and three police officers, alleging the ticketing process was a violation of their constitutional rights and the collection of the fines was a racketeering scheme to defraud and extort them.

Earlier this year, Mummert in a broad-ranging ruling upheld about half of the plaintiffs’ claims. He had dismissed two plaintiffs, James and Kara Hoekstra, from the suit because they did not have standing. Arnold had dropped the charges against them when they began to fight the ticket. The judge had allowed for the plaintiff’s RICO claims to continue but had dismissed claims against the Arnold City Council and mayor acting in their individual capacities on the basis of legislative immunity.

As part of his February order, Mummert asked the parties to brief him regarding the issue of whether the ordinance was civil or criminal in nature because neither party had fully addressed it. The issue came completely before the court on summary judgment.

Mummert ruled on Thursday that the plaintiffs did have standing to file the lawsuit because they were able to show “perceptible harm.” But he found that since the ordinance was a civil one, the plaintiffs’ claims became moot. Mummert determined it was a civil ordinance because it was not listed in Arnold’s code with other violations for offenses and the ordinance does not impose criminal penalties for violation but instead imposes a fine.

“The judge said the ordinance was a reasonable plan by the city to try and protect its citizens from running red lights and causing death and destruction,” Dowd said. “This decision has followed many other similar ones in federal courts across the country.”

Dowd also noted that court said the ordinance has a nonpunitive public safety purpose.

Messages to ATS attorney Jane Dueker, of Stinson Morrison Hecker, were not returned.

The case is Timothy J. Kilper et al. v. City of Arnold, Missouri et al., 4:08-cv-267.

A Cole County circuit judge has issued a preliminary injunction that prevents three administrative law judges from being forced out.

Henry Herschel, Matthew Murphy and John Tackes sued in June to prevent Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration from dismissing them. While Nixon said they were let go for budgetary reasons, an attorney for the judges says the move violated statutes that lay out a specific dismissal process.

Judge Jon Beetem issued a temporary restraining order late last month, a move that prevented the judges from leaving their positions for 15 days.

In a ruling issued Thursday, Beetem granted the injunction, which “shall remain in effect until a full adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims on the merits or until further order of this Court.”

“The Court has weighed Plaintiffs’ showing of their probability of success on the merits, the threat of irreparable harm to Plaintiffs absent the injunction, the balance between this harm to Plaintiffs and the injury that the injunction’s issuance would inflict on other interested parties, including Defendants and the public interest,” Beetem wrote. “The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.”

Beetem then wrote that the defendants – which include Nixon, his chief of staff and the chiefs of the Division of Workers’ Compensation and the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations – are barred from terminating the three men’s appointments or engaging in “any retaliatory actions.”

John Comerford, an attorney for the three judges, said in an e-mailed statement he was “very pleased” with Beetem’s order.

“My clients are looking forward to continuing to serve the public as administrative law judges,” said Comerford.

Nanci Gonder, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Chris Koster, declined to comment.

Beetem scheduled a case review for 11 a.m. on July 22.

Three administrative law judges contesting their dismissals will get at least a couple more weeks to continue at their posts.

Jon Beetem, a Cole County associate circuit judge, issued a temporary restraining order against a bid by the state to lay off three administrative law judges. Without such an order, the three men – Henry Herschel, Matthew Murphy and John A. Tackes – would have been forced to leave their positions by June 30.

“The Court finds that plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in the form of the loss their appointments as Administrative Law Judges in the absence of this order,” Beetem wrote in the two-page order issued Monday.

Beetem went on to write the defendants in the case – including Gov. Jay Nixon, Division of Workers’ Compensation acting director Peter Lyskowski and Nixon chief of staff John Watson – are barred from terminating the three judges or “engaging in any retaliatory actions.”

The order remains in effect for 15 days and could be extended if the plaintiffs show “that a threat of immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage continues to exist.”

Citing budgetary reasons, Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration dismissed four administrative law judges earlier this month. A position of a fifth judge who retired is not going to be filled. Three of judges sued in Cole County Court last week in order to keep their positions. The fourth judge who was laid off, June Doughty, is not a party in the suit.

St. Louis-area attorney John Comerford has argued that there is statutory language that prevents administrative law judges from being dismissed without a standardized procedure. He’s also argued that lowering the number of judges will slow down the processing of workers’ compensation claims.

In a telephone interview on Monday, Comerford said “we have the law on our side and the facts on our side.”

“This is just the first battle,” Comerford said. “And we’re eager to move onto the next step, which will be to ask the court for a permanent injunction.”

“And really, we’re very pleased,” he added. “This is exactly how our judicial system is designed to function. The court stepped in and provided a much needed check and balance to protect individual rights in a case where the executive branch, in our opinion, has overreached.”

Nixon has argued that then-Gov. Matt Blunt also made reductions in the number of people adjudicating workers’ compensation claims. He said at a press conference on Thursday that he did not believe his decision made the decision-making of these judges less independent.

“The legislature in a bipartisan overwhelmingly said … that they felt those non-Article V positions should be trimmed up,” Nixon said. “I mean, the Missouri Legislature trimmed up a number of legal assistants over the years anyway. And we have to balance budgets, you have to tighten them up. I don’t see that as a message at all.”

Ron Holliger, a former appellate judge who now serves as Attorney General Chris Koster’s general counsel, argued on Friday that a permanent reinstatement of the judges would prompt layoffs other employees.

“The only way for the division to have to balance its budget – which it’s constitutionally required to do – would be to lay off other employees,” Holliger said on Friday during the hearing.

Comerford said the division has typically spent less than the Legislature has appropriated over the past fiscal years. If the division went over that amount, he added, they could either cut other spending items or lay off at-will employees that he says are not protected by statute.

He’s also noted that the workers’ compensation system “is a completely separate pot of money” consisting of levies paid to the state by the insurance companies who provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage to employers.

According to a filing on Case.Net, a hearing was set for 2 p.m. July 6 on a preliminary injunction “unless parties, counsel and the court identify a mutually agreeable alternative.”

A Cole County judge said he will decide by Tuesday whether to keep three dismissed administrative law judges on the job.

Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration dismissed four administrative law judges earlier this month, while the position of a fifth judge who retired will not be filled. The judges are supposed to leave their posts by June 30 – the end of fiscal year 2009.

Three of the judges – Henry Herschel, Matthew Murphy and John Tackes – sued earlier this week, arguing that state law protects them from being dismissed without a formal process.

Judge Jon Beetem, a Cole County circuit judge, on Friday considered whether to issue a temporary restraining order against the state. If Beetem issues the order, the soon-to-be dismissed judges would remain in their positions past June 30.

John Comerford, an attorney with Dowd Bennett representing the three judges, said he was “optimistic” about his clients’ chances.

“We’re very optimistic that he will give us a temporary restraining order,” Comerford said after the hearing. “Then my clients will continue to be employed on July 1 and will continue to serve the public.”

Nixon, who has cited the declining budgetary situation for the cuts, has argued that then-Gov. Matt Blunt also made reductions to the Division of Workers’ Compensation. And Ron Holliger – a former appellate judge who now serves as Attorney General Chris Koster’s general counsel – argued for that state that a permanent reinstatement of the judges would prompt layoffs of other employees.

“The only way for the division to have to balance its budget – which it’s constitutionally required to do – would be to lay off other employees,” Holliger said Friday during the hearing.

Comerford said that the division has typically spent less than the Legislature has appropriated for it over the past few years. If the division went over that amount, he added, they would either cut other spending items or lay off at-will employees that he says are not protected by statute.