Quantcast

Missouri Supreme Court requires transfer of plaintiff's claims against drug companies to proper venue outside of St. Louis city

ST. LOUIS RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Missouri Supreme Court requires transfer of plaintiff's claims against drug companies to proper venue outside of St. Louis city

State Court
Noblemichael

Noble

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the city of St. Louis Circuit Court abused its discretion by refusing to transfer the claims of plaintiffs who resided outside the city of St. Louis after they sued a trio of pharmaceutical companies.

Treyvon Johnson alleged he was injured in St. Louis, Ryan Shelton alleged he resided and was injured in St. Louis County, and Jacob Simms alleged he resided and was injured in Dunklin County, according to the Missouri Supreme Court opinion.

“The plaintiff was trying to stretch the statutory change to include a venue that historically renders high money judgments,” said St. Louis attorney Sydney Chase.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and Janssen Research & Development moved to dismiss the claims of all plaintiffs except Johnson for improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer their claims to a proper venue. 

“The defendants, in this case, the drug companies, have a point that these people don't belong here but judges have a habit of saying, ‘Yes, stay here, why not?’,” Chase said. “The plaintiffs are tailgating to get the money but the law is very simple. You cannot tailgate on an existing case if you don't have any right to be in that county.”

St. Louis City Circuit Judge Michael Noble ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against Janssen and Johnson & Johnson who appealed the judge’s decision.

“Every plaintiff tries to find a venue somewhere that's comfortable but they have no right to be in St. Louis city and the law has been, and it's still the law, that you cannot tailgate when you don't have a venue,” Chase told the St. Louis Record.

The pharmaceutical companies argued that the parties did not waive the 90-day rule set forth in section 508.010 of the RSMo.

“Judges have always had it in their heads that they can adjust things for fairness but there is no fairness adjustment to the 90-day rule,” Chase added.

The circuit court overruled the motion nearly 240 days after it was filed, retaining Johnson’s claims in the city of St. Louis as proper.

“The trial court judge denied the change of venue, which was automatically granted by statute after 90 days and that’s why the case was appealed,” Chase said.

While Judge Noble allowed joinder of Johnson’s claim with Shelton’s and Simms’ claim, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that  Rule 51.01 doesn’t allow that method of venue creation.

“Rule 51.01 provides, ‘These Rules shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the courts of Missouri, or the venue of civil actions therein,’” wrote Missouri Supreme Court Judge Paul C. Wilson in the decision.

Under Rule 51.01, venue is determined by where a party resides or where their business is located.

“Requiring a transfer of venue, in this case, does not risk a last-minute trial delay, which would jeopardize judicial efficiency and lead to countless hours of additional litigation,” wrote Judge Wilson “The circuit court’s failure to transfer the claims of those injured outside of the City of St. Louis was an abuse of discretion. This Court makes permanent its preliminary writ of prohibition.”

More News