Missouri Supreme Court blocks St. Louis recycling lawsuit

Summary

• Missouri Supreme Court ruled the City of St. Louis is protected by sovereign immunity.
• Residents sought refunds of solid waste collection fees through a proposed class-action lawsuit.
• Plaintiff alleged the city failed to properly collect recyclables and yard waste separately from trash.
• Court held claims for money had and received are barred absent a clear statutory exception to sovereign immunity.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the City of St. Louis has sovereign immunity, barring a class-action lawsuit by residents who demanded refunds for their solid waste collection fees after the city failed to consistently provide this service.

In 2010, the city began charging residents for the service at a rate of approximately $11 per dwelling unit per month. In 2017, this fee increased to $14.

After years of difficulty collecting the solid waste and only sometimes succeeding in preventing it from being sent to landfills along with trash, the city declared in 2025 its recycling and yard waste collection program would be terminated, according to the court.

Christy Roberts initiated a class action lawsuit against the city on behalf of herself and other city residents “seeking a refund of fees paid for solid waste services due to the city’s failure to collect recyclables and yard waste separately from garbage,” according to the court.

In the initial court filings, Roberts asserted claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and money had and received.

“After the city argued section 432.070 barred her breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims, Roberts filed a second amended petition asserting only a claim for money had and received,” the court wrote in its June 23 ruling. “On behalf of herself and a purported class of city residents, Roberts seeks damages in the amount of all, or a portion, of the monthly solid waste services fees paid since 2011.”

The city countered that section 432.070 again barred this claim. A lower court overruled the city’s argument, allowing the suit to proceed.

“The city sought a writ of prohibition from the court of appeals, asking it to order the circuit court to dismiss Roberts’ petition with prejudice. The court of appeals denied the writ petition,” the court wrote in its opinion. “This court subsequently issued a preliminary writ of prohibition, which the city seeks to make permanent.”

In the unanimous opinion written by Judge Robin Ransom, the court sided with the city.

“Roberts’ unsupported legal conclusion that sovereign immunity does not bar money had and received claims is incorrect. Equitable claims for money against the government, including claims for money had and received, are precluded by sovereign immunity unless the plaintiff shows the legislature clearly authorized the suit or some other exception applies,” Ransom wrote citing Kubley v. Brooks. “Beyond referencing the proprietary function exception in a separate argument, Roberts failed to reference any authority in her second amended petition showing an exception to the default application of sovereign immunity to her money had and received claim. That failure alone requires the application of sovereign immunity.”

In its ruiling the court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent.

The case is State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. The Honorable Joseph P. Whyte, Case no. SC101315.