Quantcast

Defendants complain about where multimillion-dollar lawsuit over attorneys fees was filed

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Monday, November 25, 2024

Defendants complain about where multimillion-dollar lawsuit over attorneys fees was filed

Attorneys & Judges
Shutterstock 535572565

ST. LOUIS (Legal Newsline) – Defendants said to owe more than $3 million in legal fees are challenging the firm Armstrong Teasdale’s decision to sue them in St. Louis.

Gallant Capital, Liont LLC and Eventide Credit Acquisitions say the firm has represented them in lawsuits pending in Virginia and other states but not Missouri. They say “virtually all” of Armstrong Teasdale’s services have been provided by the firm’s offices in Philadelphia and Virginia.

Considering the defendants have no offices in Missouri and aren’t authorized to do business there, they feel the St. Louis federal court is the wrong place for the lawsuit.

“Defendants assert that this court's exercise of jurisdiction over them will violate due process because: (1) they have not had minimum contacts with Missouri and (2) maintaining this suit in Missouri will offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,” the motion says.

“Moreover, Defendants have not purposefully availed themself of the benefits and protections of Missouri’s laws by establishing ‘minimum contacts’ with Missouri. In short, Defendants’ contacts with the state of Missouri are insufficient to satisfy due process.”

According to the lawsuit, defendant Matt Martorello hired Armstrong Teasdale in October 2018 as representation for several lawsuits.

Armstrong represented the defendants in more than a dozen lawsuits and arbitrations from 2018 to 2020. In September 2020, the defendant allegedly told the plaintiff that Armstrong was being replaced as their representation, and have failed to pay more than $3.5 million in outstanding balances for legal fees.

The complaint says Armstrong Teasdale’s principal place of business is St. Louis.

“This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants, because they requested Armstrong to provide legal service, negotiated and transacted business with Armstrong within the State of Missouri and within this district, Armstrong provided legal services to Defendants from Missouri, invoices were generated by Armstrong in Missouri and sent to Defendants from Missouri, and Defendants made partial payment of Armstrong’s fees and costs to Armstrong in Missouri,” the lawsuit says.

More News