Challenging Venue and Timely Filing
ABSTRACT: In State of Missouri ex. Rel. ArchCity Defenders, Inc., v. Whyte, the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled that motions for change of venue based on improper venue brought by plaintiffs are untimely and prohibited under Missouri law.
In November 2023, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Jefferson County, Missouri, against multiple Defendants. In response to the lawsuit, Defendants claimed venue in Jefferson County was improper and timely moved to transfer the case to St. Louis City. The Jefferson County Court did not rule on the motion for 90 days. Under Missouri Law, the motion for change of venue was automatically granted once 90 days had passed without a ruling, and the case was transferred to St. Louis City.
Plaintiff then filed a motion for change of venue to transfer the case from St. Louis City back to Jefferson County. The St. Louis City Court did not rule on Plaintiff’s motion within 90 days, and the case was re-transferred back to Jefferson County. In response, Defendants asked the Missouri Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus directing that the case be sent back to St. Louis City.
The issue for the Court of Appeals was whether Plaintiff’s motion to re-transfer the case back to Jefferson County was permissible and was timely filed under Missouri law. The appellate court granted Defendants’ writ, holding that Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue was untimely.
Missouri’s Rules of Civil Procedure state that any motion to transfer based on improper venue shall be filed within 60 days of service on the party seeking transfer. In ruling that Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue was filed out of time, the Court of Appeals gave some important insight into this rule regarding who can file a motion for change of venue.
The Court reasoned that Missouri Law implies that because petitioners are the master of the petition and can choose where to file suit, only respondents and third parties can file a motion for change of venue based on improper venue. In this case, Plaintiff was never served with the case and the sixty-day period never started. Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded that Plaintiff’s motion could not be considered timely under Missouri law.
The Court of Appeals further noted that passage of 90 days without a court ruling does not mean that a motion for change of venue must in all instances be granted. Rather, if the transfer motion was not procedurally valid and timely filed in the first place, the 90-day timeframe for the trial court to rule was never triggered.
Key takeaways: Here, the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled that because plaintiffs are the masters of their complaint and presumably know what they are doing when they file the case in a particular court, only respondents and third parties can move to change venue based on improper venue. Counsel should pay close attention to the 90-day timeframe for the trial court to rule on a motion to change venue. If Plaintiff wants to oppose the change of venue, counsel should make sure that the motion is set for hearing, and a ruling is issued before 90 days elapse. And if the moving party sees nothing happening on the docket as the 90-day deadline approaches, the best strategy may be to sit and wait for the time to expire, which will generally result in the case being automatically transferred.related services
- Aerospace
- Automotive & Heavy Equipment
- Construction
- Food & Beverage
- Banking
- Healthcare
- Hospitality & Leisure
- Insurance
- Pharmaceutical & Medical Device
- Retail
- Trucking
- Railroad
- Propane
- Recreational Transportation
- Governmental Agencies/Public Entities
- Appellate
- Class Action & Multidistrict Litigation
- Complex Commercial & Business Litigation
- Construction Trial & Litigation
- Cyber Liability, Privacy & Data Breach
- Employment & Labor
- Financial Services Litigation
- Government Liability Defense
- Insurance Coverage & Bad Faith
- Intellectual Property
- Law Enforcement & Civil Rights Defense
- Mediation & Arbitration
- Medical Malpractice
- Personal Injury Defense
- Premises Liability
- Product Liability
- Professional & Management Liability
- Property Rights/Rails-to-Trails
- Road Design Defense
- Surety & Fidelity
- Toxic/Mass Tort & Environmental
- Trial Practice & Consulting
About Missouri Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Missouri Law Blog examines significant developments, trends and changes in Missouri law on a broad range of topics of interest to Missouri practitioners and attorneys and businesses with disputes subject to Missouri law. Learn more about the editor, David Eisenberg.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Missouri Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Missouri Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Missouri Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.