Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

SC Data Center, INC., d/b/a Colony Brands Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
sc-data-center-inc-d/b/a-colony-brands
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving SC Data Center, INC., d/b/a Colony Brands

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Respondent

Ria Schumacher, on behalf of a class, appealed the circuit court's dismissal of their petition against SC Data Center for alleged Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) violations and the denial of their motion to enforce a $333,600 settlement agreement. The circuit court had dismissed the petition for lack of standing and denied enforcement without providing reasoning. The appellate court reversed the denial of the motion to enforce the settlement, holding that the circuit court had authority to consider the motion as a collateral action and that the parties had formed a binding settlement contract. The case was remanded for enforcement of the settlement and a court-approval hearing.