Suren Chaganti, M.D., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Thomas Nowotny, et al., Defendant/Respondents.
Decision date: UnknownED87933
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
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Suren Chaganti, M.D., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Thomas Nowotny, et al., Defendant/Respondents. Case Number: ED87933 Handdown Date: 05/30/2006 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Thomas C. Grady Counsel for Appellant: Naren Chaganti Counsel for Respondent: Winthrop B. Reed, III Opinion Summary: Suren Chaganti has filed an appeal from the order granting the defendants' motion to transfer venue to St. Louis County. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division Five holds: There is no final, appealable judgment because the entire case remains pending and no claims or parties have been resolved. Citation: Opinion Author: Glenn A. Norton, C.J. Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Knaup Crane and Shaw, JJ., concur. Opinion: Suren Chaganti (Plaintiff) has filed an appeal from the order granting the Defendants' motion to transfer venue to St. Louis County. Because there is no final, appealable judgment, we dismiss the appeal. Plaintiff filed a petition for damages in the City of St. Louis under the Missouri Human Rights Act against Thomas Nowotny, Thomas Rockers, David Haueisen, Roger Vardeleon, David Seifert, and St. Anthony's Medical Center (Defendants). Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to St. Louis County, alleging that Plaintiff and all Defendants
resided in St. Louis County and the all alleged wrongful acts occurred in St. Louis County. The trial court entered an order concluding that venue was not proper in the City of St. Louis and transferred the matter to St. Louis County. Plaintiff filed an appeal from this order to this Court. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's appeal, contending there is no final, appealable judgment, because the trial court's order did not dispose of all issues and parties in the cause, it simply transferred the case to an appropriate venue. Plaintiff has filed suggestions in opposition, contending that after transferring venue to St. Louis County, nothing remains in the City of St. Louis to be determined and therefore, the order is final and appealable. An appellate court only has jurisdiction over final judgments that dispose of all parties and claims in the case and that leave nothing for future determination. Rule 74.01(b); O'Neill v. O'Neill, 864 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). An order granting a motion to transfer venue is not a final and appealable judgment, because the entire case remains pending and no claims or parties have been resolved. Any such decision is only reviewable by an extraordinary writ or after final judgment in the case. See, e.g., State ex rel. Bugg v. Roper, 179 S.W.3d 893, 894 (Mo. banc 2005) (extraordinary writ); Montgomery v. South County Radiologists, Inc., 168 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (after final judgment). Plaintiff relies upon Control Technology and Solutions v. Malden R-1 School Distr., 181 S.W.3d 80 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005), for his contention that an order granting a motion to transfer venue is appealable. However, in that case, the trial court granted a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's petition for improper venue. Id. at 81. As such, the trial court did resolve all the claims and the case did not remain pending in any jurisdiction. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed for lack of a final, appealable judgment. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
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