Background
Pretzel Boys Licensing bought assets from Pretzel Pretzel-Telegraph, LLC and Amber Scurlock in August 2024. The transaction included a noncompete agreement signed by the LLC, Scurlock, and Anthony Simmons. The agreement generally restricted them for ten years from competing with Pretzel Boys within 50 miles of identified Oakville and St. Louis locations.
In 2025, Pretzel Pretzel announced on Facebook that it would open a retail location at 6045 Chippewa Avenue in St. Louis, near a Pretzel Boys store. Pretzel Boys sought injunctive relief. After consolidating hearings on preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, the circuit court permanently enjoined the appellants from “opening a retail store at 6045 Chippewa Avenue.” The appellants appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment. Rule 92.02(e) requires an injunction to state its reasons, be specific, and describe in reasonable detail the acts restrained without incorporating other filings or documents by reference.
The decretal language did not adequately identify what “retail store” meant, including whether it covered the appellants’ contemplated online store. It also omitted a time limit or duration. The appellate court declined to cure those omissions by consulting the temporary restraining order, record, or noncompete agreement, because the injunction itself had to be clear, precise, and definite. It did not reach the merits of the noncompete’s enforceability.
Key Takeaways
- An injunction must specifically describe the conduct prohibited in its decretal language.
- A permanent injunction should state its duration when the restriction is time-limited.
- An unclear injunction is not final and therefore cannot support an appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that trial courts must draft injunctions as self-contained orders. Parties cannot rely on surrounding pleadings, earlier orders, or exhibits to supply essential limits on prohibited conduct.
The circuit court may clarify the injunction, after which the parties may obtain appellate review of the underlying dispute.