Background
Matthew Valdivia sued his former employer, the Missouri Department of Corrections, under the Missouri Human Rights Act. A jury found for Valdivia on retaliation and disability-based hostile-work-environment claims and awarded $1,394,887 in damages. The circuit court entered judgment on the verdict but did not decide Valdivia’s requests for prejudgment interest, reinstatement, front pay, or other equitable relief, and it did not include a catch-all denial of unaddressed relief.
In an earlier appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the judgment was final, dismissed MDOC’s appeal as untimely, and authorized appellate attorney fees for Valdivia. After remand, the circuit court relied on the law-of-the-case doctrine to decline MDOC’s request for rulings on the unresolved remedies and awarded Valdivia $245,287.76 in appellate attorney fees. MDOC appealed that judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the original judgment was not final because it did not resolve all remedies Valdivia requested or expressly deny the remaining relief. The court concluded that its contrary ruling in the earlier appeal was a jurisdictional mistake that caused manifest injustice by preventing merits review, leaving MDOC’s remittitur request unresolved, and producing an appellate-fee award based on an erroneous determination that Valdivia had prevailed.
Invoking the exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine for mistake and manifest injustice, the court recalled the mandate in the earlier appeal, withdrew that opinion, and consolidated it with the present case. It reversed the October 28, 2025 judgment, held that the appellate-fee award was premature, denied Valdivia’s request for fees in the present appeal, and remanded for the circuit court to decide the unresolved remedies and enter a final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A judgment is not final when it leaves requested prejudgment interest or equitable relief unresolved and contains no catch-all denial of the remaining relief.
- An appellate court may decline to apply the law-of-the-case doctrine when its earlier decision resulted from a jurisdictional mistake causing manifest injustice.
- Appellate jurisdiction cannot be created by waiver, acquiescence, or consent, and an attorney-fee award premised on an erroneous jurisdictional dismissal may be reversed as premature.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Missouri judgments must dispose of every requested remedy—or expressly deny all remaining relief—before an appeal may proceed. Parties and trial courts should examine verdict-based judgments for unresolved requests such as prejudgment interest, reinstatement, front pay, and other equitable relief.
It also shows that an appellate court may take the exceptional step of recalling its mandate and withdrawing a prior opinion when necessary to correct its own jurisdictional error and prevent manifest injustice.