Bartlett v. Missouri Department of Insurance, 528 S.W.3d 911

Background

Two former Missouri Department of Insurance employees (Relators) filed a class petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel payment of lost wages and pensions.
Relators initially instructed the Jackson County circuit court to file the matter as a regular civil case, and the court issued summonses rather than a Rule 94 preliminary writ.
The case transferred to Cole County; the Department moved to dismiss, arguing Relators had not complied with Rule 94 and lacked mandamus elements.
Relators amended their petition and submitted suggestions and exhibits attempting to comply with Rule 94, but the Department repeatedly objected that proper mandamus procedure had not been followed.
After summary-judgment briefing, the circuit court denied mandamus on the merits (no clearly established right) and on sovereign-immunity grounds, but never had issued the Rule 94 preliminary writ required for mandamus appeals.
The Relators appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri; the Court dismissed the appeal for failure to follow Rule 94 and because no preliminary writ had been issued.

Issues

Issue	Relators' Argument	Department's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court’s issuance of summonses (not a Rule 94 preliminary writ) permits appellate review of a denial of mandamus	Procedural defects were cured by later filings; parties litigated merits so appeal should be allowed	Rule 94 requires a preliminary writ; without it, there is no appeal from denial and the matter should proceed under mandamus rules	Dismissed: failing to issue a preliminary writ under Rule 94 precludes appellate review; appeal dismissed
Whether the court should treat a summons as the functional equivalent of a preliminary writ (as this Court did in Boresi)	Boresi and subsequent litigation justify treating the summons as a preliminary writ where parties fully litigated the merits	The Department objected and preserved that Rule 94 procedures were not followed; Boresi discretion should not be extended here	The Court declined to extend Boresi: it will not exercise discretion to treat the summons as a preliminary writ in this case
Whether Relators had a clear, unequivocal right warranting mandamus relief	Relators asserted entitlement to specific payments (wages/pensions) and sought to cure procedural defects	Department argued Relators failed to show the required clear right and also invoked sovereign immunity	Court ruled on merits in circuit court denying mandamus for lack of a clearly established right and on sovereign immunity, but those rulings are not appealable because no preliminary writ issued
Effect of parties’ and court’s failure to follow Rule 94 procedures	Relators argued they attempted to conform to Rule 94 and should not be penalized for earlier administrative handling	Department argued strict compliance with Rule 94 is required; parties who disregard the rule proceed at their own risk	Court held Rule 94 procedural rules are mandatory for mandamus; parties cannot rely on civil summons—failure to obtain a preliminary writ is fatal to appellate jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs v. Boresi, 396 S.W.3d 356 (Mo. banc 2013) (treated a summons as preliminary writ in exceptional circumstance but warned that Court need not do so in future)
State ex rel. Ashby Rd. Partners v. State Tax Comm’n, 297 S.W.3d 80 (Mo. banc 2009) (if court denies preliminary writ, relator must file in next higher court; no appeal from denial of preliminary writ)
State ex rel. Office of Pub. Counsel v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of State, 236 S.W.3d 632 (Mo. banc 2007) (mandamus requires proof of a clear, unequivocal right)
Furlong Co. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. banc 2006) (standard for establishing the clear right necessary for mandamus)
State ex rel. Tivol Plaza, Inc. v. Missouri Comm’n on Human Rights, 527 S.W.3d 837 (Mo. banc 2017) (discusses circumstances where a summons functioned as a preliminary order)