Challenging Venue and Timely Filing

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.