Bath junkie missouri

This position will also have a supervisory role and assist with scheduling. We also want our team members involved in our social media, which includes creatively taking photos and videos.

If this position would be a fit for you, please complete our application , save it has a PDF and send it to melissa bathjunkiecarmel. Visit Us : Contact Us. Shop over 25, products from….

From Business: We are a small family business in the MO Ozarks that specializes in home-made candles, soaps and many other home-made crafts. We believe our products are high…. From Business: CosmoProf in Springdale,AR is the leading distributor of professional beauty products, exclusively for licensed professionals. We are the go-to beauty company…. From Business: Based in Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Victoria's Secret is a specialty retailer primarily of women s apparel, such as lingerie, intimate clothing and personal care….

Diane is the only person I let trim my hair and do keratin treatments on. I went somewhere for a free keratin and they hurried through and it was…. I enjoy shopping at the stage in grove and love the new arrangement but I was highly disappointed to hear an employee saying aloud she hated…. Franchisees filed a motion to enforce the settlement based on the proceedings before the district court on February 22 and requested oral argument.

Franchisors did not request either oral argument or an evidentiary hearing, but they did attach affidavits from Tom Morris, Cook, Kay and Zimmer. These affidavits attested to the substance of the negotiations that occurred before the February 22 hearing, which they aver also included agreements about confidentiality, non-disparagement and non-disclosure, none of which were included in the "salient" terms identified to the district court.

All four affidavits also claimed that the parties had agreed to structure the settlement as a franchise sale and repurchase and that this "franchise sale language" was necessary to avoid Franchisors' obligation under 16 C. Relying on these affidavits, Franchisors claimed that the parties had earlier reached an agreement that contained terms in addition to those detailed on the record before the district court.

Because Franchisees wanted to enforce the settlement agreement as represented to the court on February 22, which differed from the agreement Franchisors believed they had reached during negotiations, Franchisors argued that there must not have been a meeting of the minds as to the settlement and that the Franchisees' motion, therefore, should be denied.

Franchisors asked the district court to reschedule the matter for trial. On July 27, , the district court issued a written order announcing its intent to enforce the settlement agreement and ordering the parties to advise the court whether the judgment should be filed under seal.

On July 31, Franchisors, for the first time, requested an evidentiary hearing on Franchisees' motion to enforce the settlement. Franchisors also advanced a new argument in their request for an evidentiary hearing. In addition to asking the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there was a meeting of the minds, they also requested the court to determine the terms of the settlement agreement, if it concluded there was a meeting of the minds.

On August 1, the district court entered judgment under seal enforcing the settlement agreement as it was detailed by the parties during the February 22 proceedings. Franchisors appealed the district court's refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing. Franchisors submitted their opening brief to this court on December 7, Franchisees submitted their brief on January 9, On February 14, Cook completed an affidavit in which she claimed that during her meeting with David Morris, he acknowledged that he never thought that the franchise sale language would be a "big deal" and that additional terms were to be included in the written settlement agreement.

Franchisors submitted this affidavit and copies of four draft settlement agreements, alleged to have been exchanged by the parties, to this court in a supplemental appendix on February 19 and relied upon them for arguments made in their reply brief. Franchisees moved to strike the supplemental appendix and Franchisors' reply brief. In addition to this appeal, Franchisors appeal the district court's order denying their motion to stay execution of the judgment and granting Franchisees' motion to allow the judgment to be registered and enforced in other United States district courts notwithstanding the pending appeal.

We have consolidated the two appeals. Finally, Franchisors filed a motion with this court to stay execution of the judgment. After both parties had filed their initial briefs, Franchisors submitted a supplemental appendix containing four draft settlement agreements and Cook's affidavit concerning her meeting with David Morris, none of which were part of the record before the district court.

Franchisees move to strike the appendix and Franchisors' reply brief that relied upon the supplemental appendix. Civic Ctr. Because the drafts of the settlement agreement and the second Cook affidavit were presented for the first time at the appellate stage, they are not part of the record for our review. See Huelsman, F. Because we cannot consider this evidence, we grant Franchisees' motion to strike the supplemental appendix and the reply brief to the extent that its arguments rely on evidence that had not been presented to the district court.

We now examine the record before the district court, and we review its decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. See Stewart v. District courts are given "considerable discretion" in deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing. Nowotny, F. Franchisors did not request an evidentiary hearing until after the district court had considered the arguments and the affidavits in Franchisors' Response and issued an order stating its intent to enforce the settlement agreement.

In Vaughn v. Sexton, we rejected the argument that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing when the party's original filing did not contain "any request for an evidentiary hearing or even the suggestion that the submission of additional evidence, beyond that accompanying the motion, would be necessary or helpful.

Eventually, after the district court made its decision, the party seeking an evidentiary hearing filed an untimely request, which the district court denied. We concluded that "[u]nder these circumstances, we hold that the trial court was well within its discretion to act on the original motion without giving the defendants an evidentiary hearing. In this case, Franchisors' Response did not request an evidentiary hearing. Even without a formal evidentiary hearing, Franchisors had the opportunity to present additional evidence, which they did by submitting the four affidavits attached to their Response.

The district court considered the Response and decided to enforce the settlement agreement. We conclude that, as in Vaughn, the district court had no basis to believe that either party desired an evidentiary hearing or had even suggested that the submission of additional evidence, beyond that accompanying their motions, would be necessary or helpful. Under these circumstances, the district court's decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing was not an abuse of discretion.

Franchisors essentially argue that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing sua sponte before it decided to enforce the settlement agreement. We examine whether the district court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing sua sponte constitutes plain error. We may correct the error where there is " 1 error, 2 that is plain, and 3 that affects substantial rights" and if " 4 the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding.

Rice, F. United States, 40 F. We conclude that there was no error. Based on the record before the district court, there was no substantial factual dispute over the settlement agreement, and the district court did not err by deciding not to hold an evidentiary hearing sua sponte. State Comm. Double D Tractor Parts, Inc. Perry, S.