State of Missouri, ex rel. Jack Cooper Transport Co., Inc., Relators, v. The Honorable Lucy D. Rauch, Circuit Judge, Div 3, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Mo., Respondent.
Decision date: February 23, 2010ED94066
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
WRIT DIVISION FIVE
STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. ) No. ED94066 JACK COOPER TRANSPORT CO., INC., ) ) Relators, ) Circuit Court of the County of ) St. Charles, Missouri v. ) Cause No. 0911-CV06376 ) THE HONORABLE LUCY D. RAUCH, ) Writ of Prohibition or, Circuit Judge, Div. 3 ) alternatively Writ of Mandamus Eleventh Judicial Circuit ) Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Mo. ) ) Respondent. ) FILED: February 23, 2010
Relator Jack Cooper Transport Co., Inc. seeks a Writ of Prohibition or, alternatively, a Writ of Mandamus. Previously we granted the Preliminary Writ. We now make the Writ permanent. Relator sought a Writ that would order Respondent, the Honorable Lucy D. Rauch, to sever and require separate proceedings for Plaintiff Mark A. Skinner's claims. We find that there are disparate claims which should be severed consistent with Missouri Supreme Court Rule 52.05(a).
Facts Plaintiff's Amended Petition contains six counts. Five of the counts in Plaintiff's Amended Petition are personal injury claims against various entities arising from a series of factual allegations related to an incident that occurred on 28 January 2008. Count IV of the Amended Petition is an employment discrimination claim against Relator, Jack Cooper Transport. Relator filed a Motion to Sever in which it moved the Court to sever and require separate proceedings for the employment discrimination claim. On 23 November 2009, after a hearing, Respondent entered an Order denying Relator's Motion to Sever. Discussion Relator relies on a plain reading of Rule 52.05(a). The Rule states: All persons may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrences or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all of them will arise in the action. Rule 52.05(a).
Conversely, joinder of the defendants is not permitted if the claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or the right to relief does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Here, Plaintiff attempted to join multiple defendants involved in an alleged fall incident with an employment discrimination claim involving retaliation, unfair treatment and termination. The employment discrimination claim was directed solely against Relator. The employment discrimination action in Plaintiff's claim does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. The questions of law and fact for the employment
2
3 discrimination claim are not common to those posed in the personal injury claims. As a result, the Respondent Judge erred in not granting Relator's Motion to Sever. The Preliminary Order is made Absolute and the Honorable Lucy D. Rauch is ordered to sever the claim for employment discrimination from the remaining counts in Cause No: 0911-CV06376, Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri.
________________________ Kenneth M. Romines, C.J.
Glenn A. Norton, J. and Roy L. Richter, J., concur.
Related Opinions
AIG Agency, Inc., d/b/a Associated Insurance Group, Appellant, vs. Missouri General Insurance Agency, Inc., Jim Baxendale and Mitch O'Brien, Respondents.(2015)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictNovember 3, 3015#ED102096
Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091
The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to exclude Hanshaw's expert witness testimony and grant summary judgment to Crown Equipment in a product liability case involving an allegedly defectively designed forklift. The expert's opinions were properly excluded because they were not supported by reliable methodology, as the expert performed no tests and failed to demonstrate how cited research and data supported his conclusions.
Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, vs. Natasha Kaminsky, et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101020
The court affirmed the directed verdict as to four counts against Norman based on agency but vacated and remanded the defamation counts against Kaminsky and one count against Norman, finding that the circuit court erred in requiring independent evidence of reputational damage beyond the plaintiff's own testimony when the evidence of harm was substantial and directly resulted from the defendants' statements.
K.A.C. by and through, ASHLEY ACOSTA, NEXT FRIEND, and MICHAEL CRITES, JR., Appellants v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., Respondents(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictJanuary 12, 2026#SD38943
Appellants sought damages for a wrongful death resulting from a motor vehicle collision involving a pursued driver, alleging the Missouri State Highway Patrol's pursuit was negligent and proximately caused the collision. The court affirmed summary judgment for MSHP, finding that Appellants failed to produce sufficient facts demonstrating that MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, which is a necessary element of their case.
Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm; Kevin Laughlin vs. City of Kearney, Missouri(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 16, 2025#WD87389