Recently, the Michigan Court of
Appeals addressed three issues commonly raised in shareholder oppression or
member oppression actions: (1) whether a plaintiff must prove that the
defendant intentionally engaged in unfair and oppressive conduct; (2) whether a
court can order a specific remedy for the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s motion
for summary disposition; and (3) whether valuations of a...
practitioners are now aware, effective January 1, 2020, the Michigan Court
Rules regarding discovery have been amended, changing them significantly. One of the key changes has been to the
“scope” of discovery. Previously, the
Michigan Court Rules provided that the scope of discovery had two limits placed
on it: (1) the discovery had to be “relevant to the subject matter...
By Matthew Smith Notices
of non-party fault are common and frequently lead to multi-defendant,
multi-tiered litigation. After a
plaintiff asserts one or more claims against a defendant, MCR 2.112(K)(3)(a)
requires defendant to file a notice identifying any non-party the defendant
believes “is wholly or partially at fault.” The notice “must be filed within 91
days after the party...
By Stephen McKenney The Michigan Supreme Court recently clarified the standard
for evaluating motions for summary disposition based on the plaintiff’s failure
to state a claim for relief (i.e., MCR 2.116(C)(8)). The July 10, 2019 opinion in El-Khalil
v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. (Docket No. 157846)
made two important holdings regarding how trial courts should evaluate: (1)
By Stephen McKenney Culminating a years-long review process – the
progress of which we have been tracking closely – the Michigan
Supreme Court made it official in June 2019: it has adopted the
State Bar of Michigan’s Civil Discovery Amendments. The changes to the civil discovery rules will
become effective January 1, 2020. The
new rules are available online. ...
By Steve McKenney Michigan state court litigators are familiar with MCR 2.114, the court rule that, among other things, authorizes the court to impose sanctions against a party or an attorney for filing any paper with the court that is not well grounded in fact or warranted by existing law. MCR 2.114 is the main tool courts use to punish parties and attorneys for taking a frivolous...
By Laura DePonio In a case of first impression, the Michigan Court of Appeals recently ruled that expert witnesses in professional malpractice actions may themselves be sued for malpractice if their testimony is not competent. The court ruled that witness immunity does not apply to bar all claims against expert witnesses. Voutsaras v. Mogill, issued January 3, 2019 (Docket No...
By Matt Smith Amidst the September 1, 2018 e-filing uniformity revisions to MCR 1.109, the Michigan Supreme Court inched a bit closer to providing Michigan state court litigators a tool previously reserved for federal practice – the unsworn, un-notarized declaration. For those unfamiliar with this creature of federal statute, please check out the prior post here:...
This year the Michigan Legislature joined the Michigan Supreme Court in revising the state’s approach to receiverships. For many years, receiverships have been equitable creatures, controlled by the trial courts, with only minimal guidance from the governing statutes and court rules. The Michigan Supreme Court started changing this landscape with its expansion of MCR 2.621 and MCR...
Most civil litigation ends with a settlement agreement in which the parties agree to compromise their claims and defenses, dismiss the underlying lawsuit and release all claims they have against one another. Normally this ends the matter and the parties go their separate ways. But what happens when one party breaches the settlement agreement? What options does the...