Missouri Appellate Court Overturns Dismissal 14-Month Litigation Delay Deemed Insufficient for Failure to Prosecute
By Legal Affairs Desk
St. Louis, August 26, 2025 – In a significant ruling that reinforces Missouri’s judicial preference for resolving cases on their substantive merits, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District has reversed a lower court’s decision to dismiss an employment discrimination lawsuit against a St. Louis hospital. The appellate court found that a 14-month period of relative inactivity did not justify dismissing the case for failure to prosecute, as the plaintiff, identified only as Murphy, demonstrated sufficient efforts to keep the litigation alive. The decision, handed down on August 20, 2025, underscores the balance between judicial efficiency and ensuring access to justice, particularly in complex civil cases.
Case Background: Murphy v. St. Louis Hospital
The case originates from a lawsuit filed by Murphy in late 2023 in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, alleging workplace discrimination under Missouri’s Human Rights Act. Murphy, a former employee of an unnamed St. Louis hospital, claimed wrongful termination and discriminatory treatment based on protected characteristics, though specific details of the allegations remain sealed due to privacy concerns. The lawsuit progressed through initial stages, including the filing of pleadings, responses, and preliminary discovery motions, but hit a lull that prompted the hospital’s legal team to file a motion to dismiss.
Citing Missouri Supreme Court Rule 67.03, which permits involuntary dismissal for a plaintiff’s failure to diligently prosecute a case, the hospital argued that Murphy’s inaction over approximately 14 months—spanning from early 2024 to mid-2025—constituted abandonment. The trial court agreed, dismissing the case in a ruling that described the plaintiff’s pace as “far from model case management.” The court noted that the delay clogged an already burdened docket, potentially prejudicing the defendant by prolonging uncertainty and complicating evidence preservation.
Murphy promptly appealed, contending that the dismissal was premature and that her legal team had taken sufficient steps to advance the case, even if progress was slower than ideal. The appeal was heard by a three-judge panel of the Eastern District Court of Appeals, with Judge Philip M. Hess authoring the unanimous opinion.
Appellate Court’s Rationale: A Preference for Merits Over Procedure
In its ruling, the appellate court acknowledged the 14-month period of limited activity but rejected the trial court’s conclusion that it warranted dismissal. Judge Hess emphasized Missouri’s longstanding judicial philosophy favoring resolution on substantive grounds over procedural penalties. “While this is far from model case management, given this court’s preference for resolving cases on their merits, the relative swiftness of the dismissal here, and our insistence on doing justice over expediting dockets, these three actions constituted sufficient work to avoid dismissing Murphy’s cause of action for failure to prosecute,” the opinion stated.
The court identified three specific actions by Murphy that demonstrated ongoing engagement with the case:
- Response to Discovery Requests: Murphy’s legal team provided responses to the hospital’s interrogatories and document requests, albeit with some delays attributed to the complexity of gathering employment records and witness statements.
- Attendance at a Status Conference: The plaintiff participated in a court-scheduled status conference, where counsel discussed discovery timelines and potential settlement options, signaling intent to proceed.
- Filing a Motion to Compel: Murphy filed a motion to compel additional documents from the hospital, which the court viewed as a proactive step to advance the litigation, even if it was not promptly followed by further filings.
These actions, though modest, were deemed sufficient to show that Murphy had not abandoned the case. The court distinguished this situation from cases where plaintiffs exhibit willful neglect, such as failing to respond to court orders or missing multiple deadlines without explanation. The opinion noted that employment discrimination cases often involve extensive discovery due to the need to establish patterns of behavior, which can naturally extend timelines.
The appellate panel also addressed the issue of prejudice to the defendant. The hospital argued that the delay could lead to faded witness memories or lost evidence, but the court found no concrete evidence of harm. “Mere passage of time, without specific detriment to the defendant’s ability to defend, does not justify so drastic a remedy as dismissal,” Judge Hess wrote, citing precedents like Smith v. City of St. Louis (1987) and Johnson v. Missouri Board of Probation (2001).
Legal Context and Missouri’s Approach to Failure to Prosecute
Missouri Supreme Court Rule 67.03 allows trial courts to dismiss cases for failure to prosecute when plaintiffs show a lack of diligence that unduly delays proceedings. However, Missouri courts have historically applied this rule sparingly, reserving it for extreme cases of inaction—such as years-long lapses with no activity or repeated failures to comply with court directives. The appellate court’s ruling aligns with this cautious approach, reinforcing that dismissal is a “drastic remedy” that should not be imposed lightly.
The 14-month delay in Murphy’s case, while significant, was not unprecedented in civil litigation, particularly in employment disputes where discovery can be protracted. For comparison, Missouri courts have upheld dismissals in cases involving multi-year delays with no activity, such as Doe v. St. Louis County (1995), where a plaintiff took no action for over three years. In contrast, Murphy’s documented steps, however minimal, satisfied the court that the case remained active.
The decision also reflects broader judicial trends in Missouri, where post-pandemic court backlogs have heightened scrutiny on docket management. The Eastern District’s opinion implicitly critiques the trial court’s haste, noting that the dismissal came relatively early in the litigation’s lifecycle, given the case was filed less than two years prior. This stance prioritizes fairness over expediency, especially for plaintiffs alleging serious civil rights violations.
Implications for Litigants and Courts
The ruling carries significant implications for both plaintiffs and defendants in Missouri’s civil justice system:
- For Plaintiffs: The decision offers reassurance that courts will not rush to dismiss cases based solely on delays, provided some effort is shown. Legal experts advise plaintiffs to maintain a paper trail of even minor actions—such as filing motions, responding to discovery, or attending hearings—to demonstrate diligence. “This case is a reminder to keep the case moving, even if slowly,” said St. Louis-based attorney Sarah Jane Hunt, who specializes in employment law. “A few strategic filings can make all the difference.”
- For Defendants: The hospital’s loss highlights the need to show tangible prejudice when seeking dismissal for failure to prosecute. Vague claims of docket burden or potential evidence loss may not suffice. Defendants may need to provide specific examples, such as unavailable witnesses or destroyed records, to strengthen their case.
- For Trial Courts: The appellate court’s rebuke serves as a caution to lower courts against overly aggressive docket-clearing measures. With Missouri courts still recovering from pandemic-related delays—St. Louis City Circuit Court reported a 20% backlog increase in 2024—judges face pressure to streamline cases. However, this ruling signals that efficiency must not trump access to justice.
Next Steps in the Case
The appellate court’s decision reinstates Murphy’s lawsuit, remanding it to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis for further proceedings. No trial date has been set, but the ruling is likely to accelerate activity, with discovery expected to resume and potential motions to follow. Murphy’s legal team expressed relief, stating, “This decision ensures our client’s voice will be heard, and we look forward to presenting her case on its merits.” The hospital’s attorneys, while disappointed, indicated they would prepare a robust defense, focusing on the substantive claims rather than procedural arguments.
The case could now proceed to depositions, additional discovery, or settlement negotiations. Given the public interest in workplace discrimination issues, particularly in healthcare settings, the outcome may draw broader attention. Advocacy groups, including the Missouri Employment Lawyers Association, have praised the ruling as a win for employees seeking accountability from powerful institutions.
Broader Context and Future Considerations
The Murphy case arrives amid heightened scrutiny of employment practices in Missouri, where recent legislative efforts to weaken anti-discrimination protections have sparked debate. The state’s Human Rights Act remains a critical tool for workers, but plaintiffs often face uphill battles against well-funded corporate defendants. This appellate decision may embolden other litigants to pursue claims despite logistical challenges, particularly in cases involving systemic issues like workplace bias.
Nationally, the ruling resonates with trends in federal and state courts, where judges are increasingly wary of dismissing cases prematurely. A 2024 report by the American Bar Association noted a 15% decline in failure-to-prosecute dismissals since 2020, reflecting a post-COVID shift toward leniency as courts grapple with backlogs. Missouri’s approach, as evidenced here, aligns with this trend, prioritizing substantive justice over procedural rigidity.
For Murphy, the path forward involves navigating a complex legal battle, but the appellate victory ensures her claims will not be silenced by a technicality. As the case progresses, it may shed light on broader issues of workplace fairness in St. Louis’s healthcare sector, potentially influencing policy and public discourse. For now, the Eastern District’s ruling stands as a testament to Missouri’s commitment to giving plaintiffs their day in court, even when the wheels of justice turn slowly.