On August 15, 2023, the Missouri Supreme Court in State ex rel. Monsanto Co. v. Mullen, No. SC99942 (Mo. Aug. 15, 2023) (en banc), clarified competing interpretations of Mo. Rev. Stat. 508.010.5(1) (2016) with regard to the proper venue for defendant corporations sued by plaintiffs alleging first injury outside the state of Missouri. In the opinion, the Missouri Supreme Court held that venue is determined based on the location of the defendant corporation’s registered agent at the time the suit is filed, rather than the registered agent’s location on the date of a plaintiff’s first alleged injury, resolving an ambiguity contained in the statute.
Recently, the Missouri legislature passed Senate Bill 224 outlining a brand new set of discovery rules for Missouri state-court cases. These new rules represent a comprehensive revision to the existing rules and make the Missouri rules align significantly with those of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under the Missouri constitution, the statute took effect on August 28, 2019 overriding the existing rules. However, the Missouri Supreme Court cannot promulgate a new rule with less than six months’ notice, which means that the new rule would not formally be in effect before March or April of 2020. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s Rules Committee was recently advised that the Supreme Court has not updated its website to reflect the changes made in SB 224.
Continue Reading Toxic Tort Monitor: New Missouri Discovery Rules
On Monday, the Missouri Supreme Court issued an order sustaining Johnson & Johnson’s (“J&J”) last-minute Petition for writ of prohibition to stay the trial in Vickie Forrest et al. v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Cause No.1522-CC00419-01, pending in the in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Although the Supreme Court sets forth no reasoning for the stay in its one paragraph en banc order, the trial, which was set to start on January 22, 2019, will not take place until the Court weighs in on J&J’s argument that conducting a single trial of multiple claims from multiple Plaintiffs – most of whom had potentially been improperly joined – is unfair to the defendants and even potentially in violation of J&J’s constitutional due process rights. State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson et al. v. The Honorable Rex M. Burlison, Cause No. SC97637. The Forrest case is one of an onslaught of talc cancer cases brought in the St. Louis City Circuit Court on behalf of multiple plaintiffs against J&J. Forrest, and twelve other women, are alleging that their different subtypes of ovarian or gynecological cancers were caused by their use of J&J’s talcum powder products, which allegedly contained asbestos.
Continue Reading MO Supreme Court Grants J& J’s Writ of Prohibition in Talc Cancer Case
|September 26, 2018 | Editor: Jen Dlugosz | Assistant Editor: Natalie Holden|
|Fifth District Finds Personal Jurisdiction Lacking Over Ford in Long-Awaited Jeffs Decision
By Andrew Hahn
The Fifth District Appellate Court issued its long-awaited decision in Jeffs v. Ford Motor Company recently finding that Ford Motor Company was not “at home” in
|June 18, 2018 | Editor: Jen Dlugosz | Assistant Editor: Natalie Holden|
|New Tool for Non-Resident Defendants Seeking to Challenge Personal Jurisdiction in Illinois
By Dominque Savinelli
If you are a non-resident corporate defendant in Cook County, Illinois, you should become familiar with Campbell v. Acme Insulations, Inc., as it will undoubtedly
|January 17, 2018|
|A Review of 2017 Personal Jurisdiction Decisions
By Taylor Concannon
In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California continued the trend that began in Goodyear and Daimler and reaffirmed its limits on personal jurisdiction
|October 11, 2017|
|America’s Opioid Epidemic: Who Will Be Held Accountable?
By Ally Schwab
In recent years America has seen an increasing number of opioid-involved deaths and is currently experiencing what the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) describes as an “opioid epidemic.” This crisis has been devastating to many communities and individuals, and
Article I Section 22 of the Missouri Constitution holds that litigants have a right to trial by a fair and impartial jury of twelve qualified jurors. A qualified juror has been defined as one who is “in a position to enter the jury box disinterested and with an open mind, free from bias or prejudice.” Catlett v. Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. 793 S.W.2d 351, 353 (Mo. Banc 1990). The Missouri Supreme Court held earlier this month in Thaddeus Thomas et. al v. Mercy Hospitals East Communities, et. al, No. SC96034 that “The trial court is in the best position to evaluate a potential juror and is afforded broad discretion in determining whether the potential juror is ultimately qualified to serve.” The Court provided wide discretion to the trial judge’s ruling regarding the impartiality of a prospective juror.
Continue Reading Juror Impartiality: The Equivocal Juror
The Supreme Court of Missouri recently issued an important decision in Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Dolan, holding that Missouri did not have personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation registered to do business in Missouri that was conducting “substantial and continuous” business in Missouri, where an alleged injury to a resident of another state arose due to conduct outside of Missouri.
Continue Reading Missouri Supreme Court Limits Personal Jurisdiction
Recently the Supreme Court of Missouri held that The Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act (“PLCAA”) preempts a negligence claim but allows a correctly pled negligent entrustment action against a firearm seller. Thus, the PLCAA is not only a hot political topic being discussed by the Presidential Candidates, but also one that is being litigated within the legal system.
In Delana v. Ced Sales, Inc., d/b/a Odessa Gun & Pawn, et al., (2016 WL 1357209 (MO en banc April 6, 2016, not released for publication) defendant Odessa Gun & Pawn (“Odessa) sold a firearm, to a mentally ill child of the plaintiff, Janet Delana, which the child used to kill her own father. Plaintiff telephoned Odessa and asked the store manager, Derrick Dady, to refrain from selling a gun to her daughter, who was severely mentally ill and should not have a gun. Plaintiff also told Mr. Dady that her daughter had purchased a gun at Odessa the previous month and attempted to commit suicide, and said, “I’m begging you, I’m begging you as a mother, if she comes in, please don’t sell her a gun. Two days later, Mr. Dady sold her a gun and ammunition which she used within an hour to kill her father.Continue Reading PLCAA Challenged in Politics and in the Courtroom