The plaintiffs' attorney, Audrey Smollen, requested Dec. 27 that another judge rule on her motion to recuse Jaynes, the current circuit judge on the case, and for it to be placed on the docket of newly appointed 26th Circuit Judge Peggy Richardson at 9 a.m. Jan. 25 at the Miller County Courthouse.
Smollen and the defense's counsel, Eldon City Attorney Mark Warren, agreed if the case continues after review by Richardson, the court is to rule on the city's motion for summary judgment without any argument or court appearances by the attorney, according to court records.
The case began in 2011 when a group of 17 landlords who owned property in Eldon filed a lawsuit against the city regarding municipal water and sewer billing policies. Early on, eight of the landlords dismissed themselves from the suit, but the now remaining seven individuals - Joan Jungmeyer, Glen Jungmeyer, Robert Dunstan, Kimberly Ruiz-Tompkins, Dennis Killday, Linda Killday and Timothy P. King - continue to fight the city's 2010 "vacant meter" ordinance.
The 2010 ordinance at issue raised monthly user rates and began charging owners of multi-unit complexes served by a single meter a minimum fee per unit in addition to actual usage, where previously they had paid only for actual usage tracked by the meter.
The 2008 and 2010 ordinances in question "increased waterworks charges by imposing on unoccupied properties monthly fees equal to the monthly minimum base water and sewer charges, even if the water meter is disconnected and not in use," plaintiffs said.
The initial hearing resulted in a ruling in favor of the city; however, the plaintiffs filed an appeal.
The Western District Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's decision in April 2015. Warren filed a motion to rehear the decision, which was overruled, and filed an application to transfer the case to the Missouri Supreme Court, which was denied.
The appellate court's decision sent the case back to the circuit court in December 2015, continuing where it left off before the circuit court granted the city's motion for summary judgment.
Jaynes, who ruled in the city's favor initially, was assigned to the case when it returned to circuit court in Miller County. The plaintiffs' attorney filed a motion in January of this year for a change of judge, suspecting that "Judge Jaynes may be displeased with the reversal and be further prejudiced against them," according to court records.
The city opposed the motion for change of judge a week later.
The plaintiffs' request claimed Jaynes' original summary judgment in the city's favor constituted a preconception about what the case's outcome should be.