Venue Dispute in Missouri
The Missouri Supreme Court recently entertained oral arguments in a significant case involving six plaintiffs who filed lawsuits in the St. Louis Circuit Court, attributing their development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma to exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide between 1980 and 1994.
Key Points:
- Despite the fact that their exposures occurred outside Missouri, the plaintiffs opted to initiate legal action in St. Louis, citing Monsanto’s presence in the city at the time of their initial exposures.
- Monsanto, on the other hand, sought to relocate the venue to St. Louis County, where its current registered agent is situated. However, the trial court retained jurisdiction over the cases, keeping them within St. Louis County.
Venue Battle:
- The choice of venue is crucial, with St. Louis often perceived as more favorable for plaintiffs, offering potentially higher damages and increased likelihood of success.
- Monsanto contends that venue should be determined based on the current location of its registered agent, in line with Missouri’s venue statute, section 508.010, RSMo, and the objectives of the 2005 Tort Reform Act aimed at curbing forum shopping.
Plaintiffs’ Argument:
- Plaintiffs counter Monsanto’s stance, asserting that venue should be established based on historical circumstances, particularly the presence of Monsanto’s registered agent in St. Louis at the time of their initial exposures.
- They argue against Monsanto’s proposal to change venue based on the relocation of the defendant’s registered agent, emphasizing the need for consistency and avoiding manipulation of venue by defendants.
This ongoing dispute over venue underscores the complexity and significance of legal jurisdiction in cases involving mass torts and corporate accountability.
