St. Louis Town courts have lengthy been regarded as a number of the maximum pro-plaintiff within the nation and for years litigation vacationers flocked there the use of multi-plaintiff proceedings with a unmarried town resident to safe the venue. Then the sector modified in 2019. The Missouri Excellent Court docket made up our minds State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson v. Burlison, 567 S.W.3d 168 (Mo. 2019) and later that yr the legislature codified the ruling. No longer best was once Missouri’s permissive joinder statute modified to ban altogether the joinder of more than one plaintiffs just because they have been suing over the similar product, however Mo. Stat. §508.010 was once amended to ascertain that during “tort” circumstances, the venue as to the “particular person plaintiff” for an motion in opposition to a international company can be:
in any county the place a defendant company’s registered agent is positioned or, if the plaintiff’s major position of place of dwelling was once within the state of Missouri at the date the plaintiff was once first injured, then venue is also within the county of the plaintiff’s major position of place of dwelling at the date the plaintiff was once first injured[.]
And only in the near past the Missouri Excellent Court docket had the danger to place those adjustments into motion in State ex rel. Monsanto Corporate v. Mullen, — S.W.3d –, 2023 WL 5229516 (Mo. Aug. 15, 2023). Plaintiffs have been six non-Missouri citizens who had filed complaints in St. Louis Town. Some have been on multi-plaintiff proceedings filed pre-2019 and a few have been extra lately filed single-plaintiff claimants. Identity. at *1. Defendant moved to switch venue to St. Louis County in 5 of the six circumstances. That movement was once denied. The six plaintiffs moved to consolidate their claims and time table a joint trial. That movement was once granted. Defendant moved for reconsideration of the consolidation order and reiterated its flawed venue arguments. That movement additionally was once denied, and the case was once set to start trial in January 2023. Defendant filed a writ of mandamus or prohibition to the Missouri Excellent Court docket.
The query sooner than the Missouri Excellent Court docket was once “whether or not venue is decided in response to a defendant company’s registered agent’s location on the time the swimsuit is filed or in response to the agent’s location at the date of a plaintiff’s first alleged damage.” Identity. at *2. That was once a serious problem as a result of defendant had relocated its registered agent from St. Louis Town to St. Louis County between the time of alleged first damage and the time the proceedings have been filed.
The acceptable statutory provision is the only cited above and because the Missouri Excellent Court docket famous, aggravating is necessary. The statute makes use of the existing aggravating to explain the related location of the company’s registered agent – is no longer was once. The usage of each the existing and previous aggravating in the similar statutory subdivision, “is a vital indicator in statutory development,” and confirms that use of the current aggravating when discussing registered brokers “was once no longer unintentional.” Identity. at *3.
The court docket’s interpretation may be in step with the aim of the registered agent, to obtain carrier of procedure. Identity. So, the county the place the defendant chooses to website online its agent for carrier of procedure on the time of swimsuit controls venue when the plaintiff is an out-of-state resident. As equipped in §508.010(5)(1), the result’s other when if the plaintiff is a Missouri resident. Then, venue is the place plaintiff resided (previous aggravating) on the time of first damage.
Plaintiffs argued that the court docket wish to learn §508.010(5)(1) along with Mo. Stat. §508.010(9) which gives that: “In all movements, venue can be decided as of the date the plaintiff was once first injured.” That language is utilized in more than one sections of §508.010, however best in connection with figuring out venue in response to plaintiff’s major position of place of dwelling. The legislature conspicuously disregarded that language from the segment coping with venue in response to a company’s registered agent which applies to out-of-state plaintiffs. The language of §508.010(5)(1) additionally applies “[n]otwithstanding another provision of regulation.”
Due to this fact, as a result of defendant’s registered agent at time the fits have been filed was once in St. Louis County, the Missouri Excellent Court docket discovered the circuit court docket exceeded is authority by way of refusing to switch venue as defendant asked.
On the other hand, the Missouri Excellent Court docket did make a couple of different noteworthy procedural holdings/feedback. First, waiver might be enforced if the venue factor isn’t well timed raised within the first example. The court docket was once no longer prepared to mandate switch for the 6th plaintiff as a result of defendant didn’t problem venue throughout the 60 days allocated by way of Rule 51.045(a). Defendant argued that their prior movement to switch, filed two years previous, carried out to this 6th case when that case was once therefore consolidated with the others. The court docket didn’t to find the argument persuasive. Identity. at *4.
2nd, the “submitting of a writ petition at the eve of trial is also grounds for this Court docket in long term [mandamus] circumstances to workout its discretionary authority to not factor the writ.” Seven months elapsed between the circuit court docket’s denial of the movement to rethink and defendant’s searching for the writ. The takeaway– timeliness of difficult venue, each within the trial court docket and on enchantment, is really useful.