Supreme Court considers time limit for pizzeria food-invoice dispute 

The Missouri Supreme Court has been asked to decide which of three potential statutes of limitations applies to a lawsuit between a St. Louis pizzeria and its former supplier.

The court heard arguments on Sept. 23 in the now-10-year-old dispute between DiGregorio Food Products and John Racanelli, who runs several pizzerias in the St. Louis area. In a lawsuit filed in late 2016, DiGregorio alleged that Racanelli had failed to pay for ingredients in 2009 and 2010.

Racanelli argued that the breach-of-contract claims were brought too late, as their business relationship had ended in 2010, and that the suit came after the five-year statute of limitations had expired. But at a bench trial in January 2019, St. Louis County Circuit Judge Thea A. Sherry found that a separate 10-year limit applied and found Racanelli liable for about $44,000.

The Court of Appeals Eastern District affirmed the judgment earlier this year in an unpublished opinion. But the Supreme Court now is considering whether the case falls under the five-year or the 10-year statute of limitations — or possibly even a four-year limit that applies in some instances. 

At issue is the nature of Racanelli’s orders. In briefs, the parties said pizzeria employees would call DiGregorio to order ingredients, which were then delivered by truck. A Racanelli employee would then sign the written invoice.

The five-year statute, which Racanelli favors, generally applies to all “actions upon contracts, obligations or liabilities, express or implied.” There also is a four-year statute that applies where the contract is “for the sale of goods,” which Racanelli argued potentially applies and would yield the same result.

The 10-year statute, however, is used in actions to enforce “any writing, whether sealed or unsealed, for the payment of money or property.”

No attorney argued in the Supreme Court for DiGregorio, but in briefs filed in the Eastern District the food supplier argued that, by listing the names of the parties, the items delivered and the price, the invoices contained the essential elements of a contract.

“The writing in the DiGregorio invoices can be construed no other logical way but that John Racanelli promised payment for the food products purchased for his restaurants,” Ronald A. Caimi of Vogler & Associates wrote in the brief.

At oral arguments, Henry F. Luepke of Pitzer Snodgrass, an attorney for Racanelli, argued that the circuit court’s judgment and the Eastern District’s memorandum opinion conflict with Missouri case law. Luepke said holding that a standard invoice constitutes a contract would “drastically shift the balance of power in commercial transactions away from buyers and into the hands of sellers.”

Without an attorney to argue the other side, the entire argument lasted just 15 minutes.

“The rebuttal I guess, is fairly simple — or nonexistent, as you say,” Luepke told Chief Justice George W. Draper III near the end of the case.

The case is DiGregorio Food Products Inc. v. Racanelli, SC98443.