566 S.W.3d 240
Mo.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Twillmans) are St. Charles County residents who formed AHS after canceling a PIRTEK franchise; PIRTEK sued in Florida and obtained a preliminary injunction that forced Plaintiffs to cease AHS operations. Relators (HeplerBroom, LLC and partner Davis) represented Plaintiffs in the Florida matter.
- Plaintiffs sued Relators in Missouri (St. Louis City) for legal malpractice seeking roughly $4 million, alleging damages including lost profits from AHS in St. Charles County.
- Relators filed a motion to transfer for improper venue (Oct. 6, 2017), arguing Plaintiffs were first injured in St. Charles County (financial loss) and venue therefore belonged there.
- Plaintiffs filed a late reply asserting first injury occurred in Florida; the circuit court heard the motion but did not rule within 90 days and did not rule on Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the late reply.
- The circuit court denied the transfer on May 10, 2018. Relators sought a writ of prohibition; this Court issued a preliminary writ and ultimately made it permanent, holding the trial court exceeded its authority by ruling after the 90-day statutory deadline in § 508.010.10.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 508.010.10’s 90-day rule applies and bars a court ruling after the deadline | § 508.010.10 conflicts with Rule 51.045; Rule 51.045 controls and imposes no deadline on the court to rule | The statute is clear: if the court fails to rule within 90 days the motion is deemed granted unless waived in writing | Court held § 508.010.10 is plain, controlling; failure to rule by Jan 4, 2018 deemed the motion granted, so court lacked authority to deny transfer |
| Whether discovery or Rule 51.045’s procedures excuse missing the statute’s deadline | Discovery needs could require more time; Rule 51.045 contemplates discovery and court discretion | If more time is needed parties can waive the 90-day statutory deadline in writing per § 508.010.10 | Court found no conflict between rule and statute; parties may conduct discovery but must use written waiver to extend the 90-day period |
| Whether Plaintiffs’ untimely reply under Rule 51.045(c) compelled transfer | Plaintiffs argued they were first injured in Florida, so venue in St. Louis was proper; they sought leave to file the reply late | Relators argued untimely reply and lack of good cause mandated transfer under Rule 51.045(c) | Court did not base decision on Rule 51.045(c); disposition rested on statutory 90-day deadline being missed, which rendered further court action unauthorized |
| Appropriate remedy (writ of prohibition) | No specific objection to extraordinary relief beyond standard appeals | Relators sought writ to compel transfer to St. Charles and prevent further circuit court action | Court granted and made permanent the writ of prohibition directing transfer (motion deemed granted) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Selimanovic v. Dierker, 246 S.W.3d 931 (Mo. banc 2008) (defines “first injury” in legal malpractice venue analysis)
- State ex rel. Heartland Title Serv., Inc. v. Harrell, 500 S.W.3d 239 (Mo. banc 2016) (extraordinary writs appropriate to correct venue decisions pretrial)
- State ex rel. Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. Nixon, 282 S.W.3d 363 (Mo. banc 2009) (court may issue writ to transfer case to proper venue to avoid unnecessary litigation)
- State ex rel. Schwarz Pharm., Inc. v. Dowd, 432 S.W.3d 764 (Mo. banc 2014) (statutory deadline can render a lower court lacking authority to act)
- City of Normandy v. Greitens, 518 S.W.3d 183 (Mo. banc 2017) (no conflict between statute and court rule where parties can comply with both)
- State ex rel. Valentine v. Orr, 366 S.W.3d 534 (Mo. banc 2012) (apply plain statutory meaning when language is clear)