When attorneys stride into court to argue the merits of a request for a preliminary injunction, they are usually focused on arguing the merits of the plaintiff’s claims. Convincing the judge that the plaintiff either does or does not have a likelihood of succeeding on the merits is obviously important. However, frequently the main battleground at the hearing will be the irreparable harm...
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion providing that a law firm that represents itself in an action for non-payment of attorney fees is entitled to obtain case evaluation sanctions and be compensated for its own fees incurred in bringing the fee action when the former client fails to accept case evaluation pursuant to MCR 2.403(O). Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, PC v...
We all know that the default burden of proof standard in civil cases is the “preponderance of evidence” standard. In explaining this standard to a jury, many of us resort to the proverbial tipping of Lady Justice’s scales. We also know that fraud claims require proof by the higher “clear and convincing” standard. Imitations of Lady Justice do not work as well with this standard, but we still...
As more practitioners file cases in the Business Courts, it is predictable that they will have to grapple with jurisdictional issues involving multiple claims. One issue that litigators should be aware of is that business courts have ‘supplemental’ jurisdiction over claims that are not themselves business court claims, but that are related to business court claims.
Under MCL...
Few accusations raise the hackles of clients more than claims that they defrauded someone. Understandably, the client accused of fraud wants his or her attorney to prove that he or she was honest and forthright in the parties’ dealings. When you win a summary disposition motion dismissing a fraud claim, you will certainly have one happy client.
However, when you take discovery in a fraud...
As we have discussed in our previous posts, on June 3, 2013, the Business Court Act became effective. That Act requires Michigan circuit courts with 3 or more judges to create a separate “business court” to handle commercial cases, with certain judges from these courts being assigned to preside over these cases.
One of the Legislature’s goals in creating the business court is to “nhance the...
In a prior article, we discussed the implementation of the new Oakland County business court under the business court act – MCL 600.8031, et seq. (the “Act). We also discussed the types of cases that are, and are not, “business or commercial disputes” that must be filed in the business court. Since our last article, we have filed several new cases in the business court, one of which bears...
Keeping Clients’ Confidential Information Out of the Public Record
In the world of commercial litigation, there is an unavoidable complication that often arises during disputes: how to handle sensitive and proprietary information. When parties to business-centered disputes resort to litigation to solve their dispute, the information that is exchanged between the parties often includes...
On June 3, 2013, Public Act 333 of 2012 (the “Act’) took effect in Michigan. The Act requires Michigan circuit courts with three or more judges to create a separate “business court” to handle commercial cases, with certain judges from these courts being assigned to preside over these cases. The Michigan legislature established the new business court in an effort to improve efficiency in the...
A party may be owed money for services they performed, however, if they do not have the proper license for their field of practice, they may be out of luck.
Michigan’s Occupational Code (the “Code”) requires a license to engage in many professions (barber, cosmetologist, architect, real estate broker, residential building contractor). If a person engages in one of these professions without a...
