Deeken v. City of St. Louis
| Decision Date | 26 September 2000 |
| Citation | 27 S.W.3d 868 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. E.D. 2000) Eric Deeken, et al., Appellants, v. City of St. Louis, Respondent. ED77336 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Henry E. Autry
Counsel for Appellant: Jerome A. Diekemper and Richard P. Perkins
Counsel for Respondent: Thomas J. Ray, Edward J. Hanlon and Kathleen A. Tanner
Opinion Summary: Plaintiffs Eric Deeken, David Reinke, Craig Duffy, Jacob Mueller, and the St. Louis Fire Fighters Association International Association of Fire Fighters Local 73 appeal the circuit court judgment in favor of respondent City of St. Louis, dismissing their request for declaratory and supplemental relief from the City's action of giving priority in hiring for the position of fire fighter to city employees over non-city employees.
Division Three holds: The Director of Personnel did not violate the Charter of the City of St. Louis as he is authorized by such to create eligibility lists based both on service ratings and competitive tests. The city's charter specifically allows the Director to take into consideration the service ratings of those employees already employed by City when ranking their eligibility.
Appellants, Eric Deeken, David Reinke, Craig Duffy, Jacob Mueller, and the St. Louis Fire Fighters Association International Association of Fire Fighters Local 73, ("plaintiffs"), appeal the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis in favor of respondent, City of St. Louis, ("City"), dismissing plaintiffs' request for declaratory and supplemental relief from City's action of giving priority in hiring for the position of fire fighter to city employees over non-city employees. We affirm.
Plaintiffs Deeken, Reineke, Duffy and Mueller are candidates for the position of fire fighter in the City of St. Louis Fire Department. Plaintiff St. Louis Fire Fighters Association International Association of Fire Fighters Local 73 is a labor organization.
Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, alleging the Director of Personnel, ("Director"), of City had violated the Charter of the City of St. Louis, ("the Charter"), in connection with the manner in which he placed applicants on the eligibility list for hiring for the position of probationary fire private with City. Plaintiffs alleged Director violated the Charter by arranging the eligibility list for the position of probationary fire private in a manner which gives classified service applicants absolute priority over non-classified service applicants in the hiring of applicants for that position. Plaintiffs alleged that as a result of this ranking method, they were each ranked lower than they would have been if the eligibility list had been arranged solely by rating highest from lowest based on their competitive examination results.
City filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction in that the individual plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies and on the ground that plaintiff St. Louis Fire Fighters Associations International Association of Fire Fighters Local 73 lacked standing.
On November 29, 1999, the trial court heard argument on City's motion, which was further supported by an affidavit and documents, submitted into evidence, establishing that plaintiffs Deeken, Reineke, and Duffy were taxpayers of City. The trial court granted City's motion to dismiss at that time. Plaintiffs appeal.
"In the interest of judicial economy, we review this matter as a summary judgment, deciding if the petition stated a claim for which relief can be granted..." Sale v. Slitz, 998 S.W.2d 159, 162 (Mo.App.S.D. 1999). "Review in such manner is consistent with holdings that state that [sic] a motion to dismiss is ordinarily confined to the pleadings and construed in the light favorable to plaintiff, but when matters outside the pleadings are considered and not excluded by the court, the trial court shall treat the motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment." Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Energy Creates Energy, LLC v. Heritage Grp.
...(Mo. App. E.D. 2007) ; ADP Dealer Services Group v. Carroll Motor Co , 195 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) ; Deeken v. City of St. Louis , 27 S.W.3d 868, 870 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000). Our courts have held in such instances, when both parties put forward evidence outside of the pleadings and ne......
-
Fuller v. Partee
...the affidavit of Fox when deciding whether claims against him should have been dismissed. See generally, Deeken v. City of St. Louis , 27 S.W.3d 868, 870 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000).DiscussionI. For clarity of discussion we address the points on appeal out of order. We begin with Point Relied On V......
-
Nichols v. Director of Revenue
...and the issues were briefed.2 Thus, the motion to dismiss would then be treated as one for summary judgment. See Deeken v. City of St. Louis, 27 S.W.3d 868, 870 (Mo.App.2000). Nonetheless, this case involves the issue of statutory construction, which is a question of law, and this court's r......
-
Wilson v. Cramer
...to dismiss was converted into a motion for summary judgment, and we will review it as such. Rule 55.27(a), (b); Deeken v. City of St. Louis, 27 S.W.3d 868, 870 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). Ordinarily, when the trial court converts a matter into a motion for summary judgment, the court must place the......