State ex rel. K2W Precision, Inc. v. Rathert, ED111117

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: Philip M. Hess, Presiding Judge
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL K2W PRECISION, INC., D/B/A KEIZER ALUMINUM WHEELS, INC., RELATOR, v. THE HONORABLE JOSEPH A. RATHERT, JUDGE OF THE MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (JEFFERSON COUNTY), RESPONDENT.
• Docket Number: ED111117
• Decision Date: 06 December 2022

STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL K2W PRECISION, INC., D/B/A KEIZER ALUMINUM WHEELS, INC., RELATOR,
v.
THE HONORABLE JOSEPH A. RATHERT, JUDGE OF THE MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT, TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (JEFFERSON COUNTY), RESPONDENT.

No. ED111117

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Writ Seventh Division

December 6, 2022

Writ of Prohibition

JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Cause No. 20JE-CC00551

Philip M. Hess, Presiding Judge

Introduction

Relator K2W Precision, Inc., d/b/a Keizer Aluminum Wheels, Inc. ("K2W" or "Relator") filed a petition for a Writ of Prohibition or Mandamus to require Respondent Honorable Joseph A. Rathert ("Respondent") to dismiss all claims in the lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Bradley J. Loyet ("Plaintiff") in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Missouri. We will proceed on Relator's writ as one in prohibition. See State ex rel. Lehmann v. Fox C-6 Sch. Dist., 565 S.W.3d 202, 205 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018).

We quash our Preliminary Order in Prohibition as to the motion to dismiss. We find Respondent did not err in denying Relator's motion to dismiss because the trial court had personal jurisdiction over Relator.

1

We make our Preliminary Order in Prohibition permanent as to the motion for summary judgment because the doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion bars Plaintiff's action.

Factual and Procedural History

Plaintiff claims on or about February 6, 2018, he suffered an injury when an aluminum wheel, designed and manufactured by Relator, failed while he was airing a racing tire. On November 21, 2018, Plaintiff sued Relator, Mercy Hospital South, West County Radiological Group, Inc., and Signature Medical Group, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Missouri ("Loyet I"). In Loyet I, as to Relator, Plaintiff brought claims of strict liability, strict liability failure to warn, and negligence. After Relator removed Loyet I to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Loyet I. Loyet then re-filed his lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Missouri and again named Relator as a defendant, along with Liebovich Brothers, Inc., and Loyet Landscape Maintenance Inc. ("Loyet II").

On the same day Plaintiff filed Loyet II, he also filed an almost identical lawsuit in Iowa state court, naming the same defendants - Relator, Liebovich Brothers, Inc., and Loyet Landscape Maintenance, Inc. ("Loyet III"). Loyet III included identical claims of strict liability and negligence against K2W as in Loyet II.

On December 9, 2020, Relator filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought against it in Loyet II in Missouri for lack of personal jurisdiction. On April 12, 2021, Respondent denied the motion to dismiss.

In November of 2021, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Loyet III in the trial court and filed a motion to dismiss Relator's appeal, arguing the dismissal of Loyet III rendered the appeal moot. Relator filed an opposition brief to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Relator's appeal given

2

Plaintiff dismissing Loyet III. Relator sought to have the dismissal of Loyet III declared a second voluntary dismissal under Iowa Civil Procedure Rule 1.943 and be treated as a dismissal with prejudice. On December 13, 2021, the Iowa Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss and declared the dismissal of Loyet III a second voluntary dismissal. Plaintiff then moved the Iowa Supreme Court to amend its December 13, 2021 Order dismissing the appeal, or in the alternative, to vacate the Order. Plaintiff requested the Supreme Court to include the language of "interests of justice" so the dismissal would be without prejudice. The Iowa Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's motions.

On February 22, 2022, Relator moved for summary judgment, arguing the doctrine of res judicata precludes Plaintiff from proceeding against K2W. On August 26, 2022, Respondent denied Relator's motion for summary judgment. Relator petitioned this Court to issue a Preliminary Order in Prohibition or Mandamus and then make permanent said Writ commanding Respondent to dismiss all claims against Relator with prejudice. This court issued a preliminary order in prohibition. Respondent filed an answer and suggestions in opposition. We now dispense with further briefing and oral argument under Rule 84.24(i).

Standard of Review

"The standard of review of the grant or denial of summary judgment is de novo." State ex rel. Heart of Am. Council v. McKenzie, 484 S.W.3d 320, 324 (Mo. banc 2016) (citing ITT Com. Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993)). "This Court seldom grants a writ to compel the grant of a motion for summary judgment, but a 'writ of prohibition is appropriate in the context of summary judgment to prevent unnecessary, inconvenient and expensive litigation.'" Id. (quoting State ex rel. City of Blue Springs v. Nixon, 250 S.W.3d 365, 369 (Mo. banc 2008)). Specifically, "[p]rohibition is appropriate in a case

3

where summary judgment was sought and denied in the trial court on grounds of res judicata." State ex rel. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gum, 904 S.W.2d 447, 451 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (citing State ex rel. Hamilton v. Dalton, 652 S.W.2d 237, 239 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983)). "The relator, however, must establish that respondent judge will usurp jurisdiction in overruling the motion for summary judgment." Id. (citing Dalton, 652 S.W.2d at 239).

Discussion

As a preliminary matter and contrary to Relator's argument, the trial court had personal jurisdiction over Relator...