In this installment of Odenwald on Appeal, Judge Kurt Odenwald examines a cautionary decision from the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, underscoring two recurring appellate pitfalls: failure to comply with briefing rules and appealing from a non-final judgment.
In Harris v. Starbucks Corp., ED113748 (Mar. 3, 2026), the court dismissed Starbucks’ appeal in its entirety—partly for briefing deficiencies and partly for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Background
Two employees sued Starbucks following their termination asserting claims of wrongful termination, retaliation, and negligence. Starbucks responded to the petition by:
- moving to compel arbitration of the wrongful termination and retaliation claims based on arbitration agreements entered between Starbucks and the employees during the onboarding process, and
- moving to dismiss the negligence claims due to Workers’ Compensation exclusivity.
Starbucks appealed from the trial court’s denial of both motions.
Points I and II: Motion to Compel Arbitration — Dismissed for Deficient Briefing
Starbucks’ first two points challenged the trial court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The problem on appeal was not the substance of Starbuck’s claims—it was the standard of review.
While the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is often reviewed de novo, the standard of review changes when the trial court conducts an evidentiary hearing on the motion to compel. When there is a factual dispute as to the existence of an arbitration agreement, as there was here, the trial court adduces evidence from the parties to resolve that dispute. In that circumstance, the appellate standard of review follows the Murphy v. Carron standard of review for a bench tried case—requiring the appellant to identify and argue one of its specific prongs (e.g., lack of substantial evidence, against the weight of the evidence, the erroneous declaration of law or the erroneous application of law).
In its opening brief, Starbucks incorrectly claimed the standard of review for the appeal was de novo review because the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. As a result, Starbucks did not identify or analyze the required Murphy v. Carron standard.
The Court focused first on Rule 84.04(e), which requires the appellant to identify the standard of review for each Point Relied On. The Eastern District emphasized that:
- It is not the appellate court’s role to apply the correct standard of review when appellant identifies the incorrect standard or
- to choose among the distinct Murphy prongs on the appellant’s behalf.
The Court explained that Starbucks’ failure to identify the correct standard of review for Points 1 and 2 required dismissal of these points. Starbucks’ failure to apply the Murphy v. Carron standard precluded the Court from knowing which of the four Murphy v. Carron prongs Starbucks would have pursued had it properly identified the standard of review. Choosing from the four prongs would have caused the Court to act as Starbucks’ advocate—which it would not do. For that reason, the Court dismissed Points I and II.
Points III and IV: Motion to Dismiss — No Final Judgment, No Jurisdiction
Starbucks’ remaining points on appeal challenged the trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss the negligence claims.
Points III and IV failed for a different reason: the lack of a final, appealable judgment.
Missouri appellate courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction sua sponte. A final judgment must dispose of all claims. The trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss does not do so—and is not independently appealable.
But Missouri has acknowledged a narrow exception: a denial of a motion to dismiss may be reviewed on appeal if the trial court’s ruling is raised as part of an appeal from a final judgment. That did not occur here.
Although Starbucks properly invoked appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of its motion to compel arbitration, an appeal from an order denying a motion to compel is an interlocutory appeal expressly authorized by § 435.440 and is not an appeal from a final judgment. For that reason, Starbucks’ appeal of the trial court’s ruling denying its motion to compel did not provide the “tagalong” jurisdiction required to review an unrelated motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, Points III and IV were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Practice Takeaways
This case is a straightforward—but powerful—reminder:
- Get the standard of review right. Especially under Murphy v. Carron, each prong requires distinct analysis.
- Rule 84.04 matters. Courts will not rewrite your brief or perform your legal framing.
- Know what is appealable. Denials of motions to dismiss are not final judgments.
- Interlocutory appeals are limited. They do not open the door to review of unrelated non-final rulings.
In short, appellate success begins with procedural precision. As Harris v. Starbucks demonstrates, even potentially meritorious arguments will not be heard if the briefing and jurisdictional foundations are not in place.
