Sunshine & Gov't Accountability Project v. Mo. House of Rep.

• Docket Number: WD 86212
• Decision Date: 05 March 2024
• Citation: 688 S.W.3d 704
• Parties: The SUNSHINE AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, Appellant, v. MISSOURI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES et al., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

688 S.W.3d 704

The SUNSHINE AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, Appellant,

v.MISSOURI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES et al., Respondents.

WD 86212

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: March 5, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, Honorable Jon E. Beetem, Judge

Mark Pedroli, Clayton, MO counsel for Appellant.

Marc Ellinger, Jefferson City, MO counsel for Respondent.

Stephanie Bell, Jefferson City, MO co-counsel for Respondent.

Before Division Two: Janet Sutton, Presiding Judge, Alok Ahuja, Judge, and Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge

Janet Sutton, Presiding Judge

Mark Pedroli¹ appeals from the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Cole County entering summary judgment in favor of the Missouri House of Repre- sentatives²(State Defendants) and denying Pedroli’s motion for partial summary judgment.The trial court entered summary judgment for State Defendants on Pedroli’s claims for a declaratory judgment that House Rule 127 was unconstitutional and that State Defendants violated the Sunshine Law, section 610.010 et seq,³(the Sunshine Law) by concealing open records including constituent email and postal addresses contained in requested records.Although State Defendants argued that Pedroli lacked standing to pursue his claims in their motion for summary judgment, the trial court’s judgment did not address whether Pedroli had standing, but instead addressed the merits of the claims.

On appeal, Pedroli contends that the trial court erred in granting State Defendants summary judgment on his claims because he contends House Rule 127 violates the Missouri Constitution which expressly provides that the House of Representatives is subject to the Sunshine Law.⁴We conclude that Pedroli did not have standing to pursue his claims and therefore, the trial court did not have authority to determine the case’s merits and grant summary judgment to State Defendants.We reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to dismiss Pedroli’s second amended petition without prejudice.

Factual and Procedural Background

On January 15, 2019, the Missouri House of Representatives adopted the "Rules of the House of Representatives, 100th General Assembly" containing Rule 127 which read as follows:

Members may keep constituent case files, and records of the caucus of the majority or minority party of the house that contain caucus strategy, confidential.Constituent case files include any correspondence, written or electronic, between a member and a constituent, or between a member and any other party pertaining to a constituent’s grievance, a question of eligibility for any benefit as it relates to a particular constituent, or any issue regarding a constituent’s request for assistance.

On April 2, 2019, an email was sent from "sunshine@pedrolilaw.com" to various "@house.mo.gov" email addresses.Attached to the email was a letter dated March 2, 2019.The letter began:

Dear Missouri Elected Official,

I am requesting records, on behalf of Pedroli Law, LLC and the Sunshine and Government Accountability Project, pursuant to the Missouri Sunshine Law, RSMo Chapter 610.I am investigating the misappropriation of constituent identities for the purpose of improperly influencing elected officials.My client’s name, address, and identity was misappropriated and used to generate communications to elected officials in an attempt to improperly influence legislation related to joinder, venue, and more broadly "tort reform."

The letter requested the following records:

1.[A]ll emails received by you in the last two years from a constituent and/or someone purporting to be a constituent wherein the subject line of the email states: a) "Keep Out-of-State Lawsuits Out of Missouri Courts" and/or b) "unclog Missouri courts[,]" and all emails wherein the body of the email contains the following words or phrases: c) "joinder" d) "venue" e) "$4.7 billion[.]"

2.Your responses to the above emails, all email replies to your response, and the remainder of the email exchange.

The letter further stated that the "information that the Sunshine Project obtains through this request will be used to advance the public interest (not to mention in the interest of every elected official)."The request was signed by "Mark Pedroli, Esq."

In early April and May 2019, responses were emailed to Pedroli at sunshine@pedrolilaw.com.The responses included PDFs of emails but, pursuant to House Rule 127andSection 610.021(14), the email and postal address of each constituent were redacted.⁵Pedroli was not billed for fees associated with preparing the responses.The response from senior counsel, on behalf of Representative Jean Evans, who had resigned from the House in February 2019, also indicated that "[i]f you represent any of the persons who presumably sent these emails, please contact me and we can discuss what additional information we may be able to provide."

Pedroli requested further explanation regarding the redactions.Senior counsel for the House of Representatives provided additional information regarding the grounds for the redactions, specifically identifying House Rule 127,Section 610.021(14), and 610.021(22) as grounds for redactions.Senior counsel again advised Pedroli that if he could verify which, if any, of the constituents he represented in his investigation, "we may be able to provide further assistance" to Pedroli.

In October 2019, a petition was filed by a plaintiff identified as the "Sunshine and Government Accountability Project," against DefendantsMissouri House of Representatives, Clerk of the House Dana Miller, Representative Jean Evans, and John Does 1-20.The petition asserted two claims for relief, first, for declaratory judgment that House Rule 127 was unconstitutional and could not be enforced, and second, that State Defendants knowingly violated the Sunshine Law by concealing open records including constituent email and postal addresses contained in the requested records.The petition affirmatively stated that the plaintiff, the "Sunshine and Government Accountability Project," was an unincorporated association.

State Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the petition should be dismissed because the only listed plaintiff was the Sunshine and Government Accountability Project (the Project), an unincorporated association, which lacks standing and legal-capacity to bring suit on all counts in that the Project failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 52.10 because it failed to designate any members as representative parties.⁶State Defen- dants also contended that the Project was not a "person" who could seek judicial enforcement under section 610.027.Finally, State Defendants moved for Jean Evans to be dismissed from the action because Jean Evans resigned from the House of Representatives in February 2019 and was not a member of the House at the time the records request was made in April 2019.It appears, from a docket entry, that the trial court allowed seven days for an amended pleading to be filed in the case.

In late March 2020, the Project filed a motion for leave to file an amended petition.The motion requested leave to substitute Mark Pedroli as the plaintiff"proceeding on behalf of the Project in the action."Subsequently, an amended motion for leave to file a first amended petition was filed, requesting leave to substitute "Mark Pedroli as the Plaintiff, Founder of the Sunshine and Government Accountability Project."The first amended petition was filed requesting the same relief in both counts, this time listing Mark Pedroli as the plaintiff, a resident of St. Louis County, Missouri.The first amended petition also added Representative Rob Vescovo, Majority Floor Leader, as a defendant and eliminated all John Doedefendants.

State Defendants filed another motion to dismiss Pedroli’s first amended petition.The motion to dismiss included arguments that Pedroli was not a real party in interest under Rule 52.01, he lacked standing on both counts, and both counts failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted.The trial court sustained State Defendant’s motion to dismiss on count one, and granted Pedroli thirty days to amend his pleadings to demonstrate standing and if he failed to do so, the trial court stated the count would be dismissed with prejudice.The trial court denied the motion to dismiss on count two.

In January 2021, a second amended petition was filed, and the plaintiff was again identified as "Mark Pedroli, Founder of the Sunshine and Government Accountability Project."It alleged that "plaintiffMark Pedroli is a resident of St. Louis County, Missouri."The second amended petition also alleged that "[o]n April 2, 2019[,]Plaintiff served a Sunshine request to the Missouri House of Representatives … seeking emails from constituents related to an investigation undertaken by Plaintiff into the misappropriation of constituent’s identities by a third party/s."Attachments to the second amended petition included exhibits such as the email and request as Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

In June 2021, State Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and statement of uncontroverted material facts.State Defendants argued that they were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because the uncontroverted material facts demonstrated that House Rule 127 was not contrary to Article III, § 19 of the Missouri Constitution and that State Defendants complied with the Sunshine Law.

State Defendants further argued they were entitled to summary judgment because Pedroli lacked standing to sue on both counts.State Defendants maintained that Pedroli alleged he had a "client" with a specific interest in the records "because their name was misappropriated in the emails" but "the client" was not the named plaintiff in the lawsuit, and Pedroli did not identify "the client" in the second amended petition.

Further, State Defendants argued that Pedroli did not allege or establish...