Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District in St. Louis
ST. LOUIS— The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District has affirmed a trial court’s decision dismissing a lawsuit filed by QuikTrip Corporation against St. Charles, ruling the company failed to exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief.
In an opinion filed March 3, the appellate court upheld the dismissal of QuikTrip’s declaratory judgment action against the city, along with claims involving city officials Jennifer O’Connor and Zachary Tusinger.
The case arose from a dispute over the city’s enforcement of a tourism tax that the company argued was improperly applied to its business operations.
According to the court’s opinion, QuikTrip filed its initial petition on June 28, 2024, challenging the city’s enforcement of a tourism tax established under Section 620.020 of the St. Charles Code of Ordinances.
The ordinance, enacted in April 1984, requires every person engaged in the business of a restaurant and selling prepared food or meals to pay the city a license tax equal to one percent of gross receipts from retail sales of goods and services on the premises.
The court noted that for many years the city did not collect the tax from certain businesses, including QuikTrip, and had previously defended itself against lawsuits seeking to compel collection of the tax.
However, the city changed course in 2023 and determined that QuikTrip was retroactively subject to the tax beginning Nov. 1, 2019, despite no changes to the ordinance or the company’s operations.
The city subsequently filed notices of liens against QuikTrip businesses in May 2023 and March 2024.
According to the opinion, QuikTrip was unaware of those liens until March 2024. On April 12, 2024, the city also refused to issue sign permits for QuikTrip locations, with an email stating that all permits regarding QuikTrip were on hold and directing questions to the company.
On June 6, 2024, the city released the earlier liens and filed two new liens against QuikTrip properties, each in the amount of $2,020,696.
Later that month, on June 27, the company was informed that its liquor license renewal application would be denied if the tax was not paid within ten days.
The following day, QuikTrip submitted its liquor license renewal application and filed a petition in the Circuit Court of St. Charles County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
The company also requested a temporary restraining order to prevent the city from denying the liquor license renewal or foreclosing on the liens.
The trial court granted the restraining order on July 3, 2024, but it was later dissolved as moot after the liquor license was renewed and the city agreed not to foreclose on the liens.
In December 2024, the city issued an “Estimate of Delinquent Tax and Notice of Determination of Failure to Pay” under Chapter 605 of the city’s ordinances. QuikTrip requested an administrative hearing two days later while continuing to object to the administrative process.
The company also filed a first amended petition seeking a judicial declaration regarding the validity of the tax and alleging the city’s ordinances were unconstitutional. The amended petition also sought injunctive relief and mandamus relating to the city’s refusal to process sign permit applications.
The city filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition, arguing that QuikTrip’s claims were barred because the company had failed to exhaust administrative remedies and also citing official immunity and failure to state a claim. QuikTrip responded that the city violated due process by failing to follow its own ordinances and by not providing an administrative remedy until December 2024, several months after the company filed its lawsuit.
On May 30, 2025, the circuit court granted the city’s motion and dismissed the first amended petition on the basis that QuikTrip had not exhausted its administrative remedies.
On appeal, QuikTrip argued the trial court erred because there was no available administrative mechanism when the lawsuit was initially filed and because its constitutional claims should not require exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The appellate court rejected those arguments.
In its analysis, the court explained that under Missouri law, declaratory judgment actions are not intended to replace existing remedies when an adequate remedy at law exists.
Administrative remedies are considered such a remedy, and parties generally must exhaust them before turning to the courts.
The opinion noted that QuikTrip initiated an administrative proceeding in response to the city’s notice of delinquent tax and that the administrative hearing process provides a forum that could resolve the dispute or develop a factual record for judicial review.
The court also observed that the administrative process had concluded and moved to a petition for judicial review in the St. Charles County circuit court.
Because an adequate administrative remedy existed, the appellate court held that QuikTrip’s declaratory judgment action was precluded. The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the company’s claims.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED113624
