Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves rule changes to class-action procedure after debate over timing and costs
Summary
The Missouri Senate adopted a substitute to SB47 on Feb. 11 that updates state class-action procedure to mirror federal practice and emphasizes an early judicial decision on class certification to limit pre-certification discovery and avoid costly, wasted litigation.
The Missouri Senate on Feb. 11 adopted a Senate substitute to Senate Bill 47 that updates state civil procedure for class-action litigation to mirror key elements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, sponsors said. The change focuses on when a court must decide whether a case should proceed as a class action, restricting broad discovery before an early certification decision and giving courts clearer gatekeeping authority.
Sponsor remarks described the change as procedural alignment with federal practice: the federal rule requires courts to decide certification “as early as practicable,” allow limited discovery to support that decision and provide enhanced oversight of settlements. The sponsor said practitioners reported that some Missouri courts have effectively allowed class litigation to proceed to extensive discovery without first certifying the class, forcing defendants to incur large expenses that may later be wasted if the class is decertified.
The bill attracted floor debate that repeatedly returned to testimony from poultry producers in Southeast Missouri. Senators described farmers who testified in committee as having borrowed millions to build facilities under contract with a processor; those producers later faced market and processing changes that left them financially exposed. Senators said the producers’ concerns illustrated the practical harms of protracted litigation and urged rules that limit delay and unnecessary cost.
Supporters said the substitute was narrowed in committee to avoid unintended substantive changes and to better track federal text where appropriate. Opponents asked questions about whether aligning text with federal rules is inherently desirable; backers noted precedents where matching federal requirements unlocked federal funding or consistent interpretations.
The Senate adopted the substitute and then perfected and ordered it printed. Sponsors said the change is intended to reduce unnecessary litigation expense and provide earlier judicial review on whether a case should proceed as a class action.
Votes at a glance: the Senate adopted the substitute by voice votes; the substitute was perfected and ordered printed.
