St. Louis Metropolis courts have lengthy been thought of among the many most pro-plaintiff within the nation and for years litigation vacationers flocked there utilizing multi-plaintiff complaints with a single metropolis resident to safe the venue.  Then the world modified in 2019.  The Missouri Supreme Court docket determined State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson v. Burlison, 567 S.W.3d 168 (Mo. 2019) and later that yr the legislature codified the ruling.  Not solely was Missouri’s permissive joinder statute modified to ban altogether the joinder of a number of plaintiffs just because they have been suing over the identical product, however Mo. Stat. §508.010 was amended to ascertain that in “tort” circumstances, the venue as to the “particular person plaintiff” for an motion towards a international company shall be:

in any county the place a defendant company’s registered agent is positioned or, if the plaintiff’s principal place of residence was within the state of Missouri on the date the plaintiff was first injured, then venue could also be within the county of the plaintiff’s principal place of residence on the date the plaintiff was first injured[.]

§508.010(5)(1). 

And only recently the Missouri Supreme Court docket had the possibility to place these adjustments into motion in State ex rel. Monsanto Firm v. Mullen, — S.W.3d –, 2023 WL 5229516 (Mo. Aug. 15, 2023).  Plaintiffs have been six non-Missouri residents who had filed lawsuits in St. Louis Metropolis.  Some have been on multi-plaintiff complaints filed pre-2019 and a few have been extra just lately filed single-plaintiff claimants.  Id. at *1.  Defendant moved to switch venue to St. Louis County in 5 of the six circumstances.  That movement was denied.  The six plaintiffs moved to consolidate their claims and schedule a joint trial.  That movement was granted.  Defendant moved for reconsideration of the consolidation order and reiterated its improper venue arguments.  That movement additionally was denied, and the case was set to start trial in January 2023.  Defendant filed a writ of mandamus or prohibition to the Missouri Supreme Court docket.

The query earlier than the Missouri Supreme Court docket was “whether or not venue is decided primarily based on a defendant company’s registered agent’s location on the time the go well with is filed or primarily based on the agent’s location on the date of a plaintiff’s first alleged harm.”  Id. at *2.  That was a big subject as a result of defendant had relocated its registered agent from St. Louis Metropolis to St. Louis County between the time of alleged first harm and the time the complaints have been filed. 

The relevant statutory provision is the one cited above and because the Missouri Supreme Court docket famous, tense is vital.  The statute makes use of the current tense to explain the related location of the company’s registered agent – is not was.  The usage of each the current and previous tense in the identical statutory subdivision, “is a big indicator in statutory development,” and confirms that use of the current tense when discussing registered brokers “was not unintentional.”  Id. at *3.

The courtroom’s interpretation can be in line with the aim of the registered agent, to obtain service of course of.  Id. So, the county the place the defendant chooses to website its agent for service of course of on the time of go well with controls venue when the plaintiff is an out-of-state resident.  As offered in §508.010(5)(1), the result’s totally different when if the plaintiff is a Missouri resident.  Then, venue is the place plaintiff resided (previous tense) on the time of first harm. 

Plaintiffs argued that the courtroom have to learn §508.010(5)(1) along side Mo. Stat. §508.010(9) which gives that: “In all actions, venue shall be decided as of the date the plaintiff was first injured.”  That language is utilized in a number of sections of §508.010, however solely in reference to figuring out venue primarily based on plaintiff’s principal place of residence.  The legislature conspicuously omitted that language from the part coping with venue primarily based on 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 legislation.” 

Subsequently, as a result of defendant’s registered agent at time the fits have been filed was in St. Louis County, the Missouri Supreme Court docket discovered the circuit courtroom exceeded is authority by refusing to switch venue as defendant requested. 

Nonetheless, the Missouri Supreme Court docket did make a couple of different noteworthy procedural holdings/feedback.  First, waiver can be enforced if the venue subject is just not well timed raised within the first occasion.  The courtroom was not keen to mandate switch for the sixth plaintiff as a result of defendant didn’t problem venue inside the 60 days allotted by Rule 51.045(a).  Defendant argued that their prior movement to switch, filed two years earlier, utilized to this sixth case when that case was subsequently consolidated with the others.  The courtroom didn’t discover the argument persuasive.  Id. at *4.

Second, the “submitting of a writ petition on the eve of trial could also be grounds for this Court docket in future [mandamus] circumstances to train its discretionary authority to not subject the writ.”  Seven months elapsed between the circuit courtroom’s denial of the movement to rethink and defendant’s in search of the writ.  The takeaway– timeliness of difficult venue, each within the trial courtroom and on attraction, is beneficial.