Woods v. SLB Prop. Mgmt., LLC

• Docket Number: Docket No. 272257.
• Decision Date: 22 January 2008
• Citation: 750 N.W.2d 228,277 Mich. App. 622
• Parties: WOODS v. SLB PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

750 N.W.2d 228

277 Mich. App. 622

WOODS v. SLB PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC

Docket No. 272257.

Court of Appeals of Michigan

Submitted January 16, 2008, at Detroit

Decided January 22, 2008, at 9:10 a.m.

Leave to appeal sought.

James H. Woods, Jr., brought an action in the Wayne Circuit Court against SLB Property Management, LLC, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, and civil rights violations arising from his employment as a valet. The complaint, filed in propria persona, was excessively long and did not clearly set forth the allegations. The court, Isidore B. Torres, J., granted the defendant's motion for a more definite statement and ordered the plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 14 days. A month after the deadline, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that, while substantially shorter, remained excessively long and vague. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that the amended complaint was not timely and failed to reasonably notify the defendant of the nature of the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff appealed.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. The trial court did not err by not addressing defense counsel's failure to file an appearance before filing a responsive pleading. Because counsel's first appearance involved the filing of a paper with the court, counsel did not need to file a written appearance to give notice of his appearance.

2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by not sanctioning the defendant for failing to file a brief in support of its motion for a more definite statement because the defendant cited relevant authority supporting its position in the body of its motion.

3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to address the plaintiff's argument that the defendant improperly served by mail its motion for a more definite statement. The plaintiff was not entitled to personal service of the motion and, by the plaintiff's own admission, the defendant served the motion by first-class mail, which is a proper manner of service.

4. The plaintiff cited no authority to support his assertion that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the motion for a more definite statement, and the fact that he had ample opportunity to present evidence at two separate hearings renders harmless any error that occurred through the lack of an evidentiary hearing.

5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting the defendant's motion for a more definite statement because the plaintiff's original complaint did not contain a statement of the facts, was overly long, and was too vague and confusing to reasonably inform the defendant of the nature of the plaintiff's claims against it.

6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by setting aside the default judgment and ruling that the defendant filed an affidavit containing a meritorious defense. Although the affidavit contained few facts to support the defense, in light of the fact that the plaintiff's complaint was nearly incomprehensible, a blanket denial and offer to testify was the best that could be expected. Further, because the plaintiff offered no evidence that the affidavit contained false statements of fact, the trial court did not err by denying the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

7. Contrary to the plaintiff's claim on appeal, he did not seek additional time to file his amended complaint, which was filed late and did not comply with the applicable court rule. Because there is no sanction that could have forced the plaintiff to assert his claims against the defendant in a comprehensible manner, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the plaintiff's complaint for failure to comply with the court's order and the court rules.

Affirmed.

James H. Woods, Jr., in propria persona.

Ravitz & Tucker, P.C. (by Lee G. Ravitz and Robert A. Novak), for the defendant.

Before: WHITBECK, P.J., OWENS and SCHUETTE, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff James H. Woods, Jr., appeals as of right the trial court's order granting defendant SLB Property Management's motions for a more definite statement, to set aside the default judgment, and to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action, and the order denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.¹ We affirm.

Plaintiff was employed as a parking valet at Park Sheldon Apartments in Detroit in 2002 and 2003. On May 11, 2005, he filed a 295-page single-spaced complaint in propria persona against defendant, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, and civil rights violations arising from his employment as a valet. In response to defendant's motion for a more definite statement, the trial court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 14 days of its order that more clearly set forth his allegations and limited the content of each paragraph to a single set of circumstances. When plaintiff failed to file his amended complaint within 14 days, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed his 95-page single-spaced amended complaint on the day of the hearing on the motion to dismiss, over a month and a half after the order instructing him to file the amended complaint was entered. The trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that plaintiff failed to file his amended complaint within 14 days of issuance of the order and that his complaint still did not conform to MCR 2.111 because it was excessively redundant and still failed to reasonably notify defendant of the nature of the claims against it.

I. MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

Plaintiff argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted defendant's motion for a more definite statement. In making this argument, plaintiff claims that the trial court failed toaddress defendant's willful and deceitful violations of various court rules. We review a trial court's decision on a defendant's motion for a more definite statement for an abuse of discretion. See Belle Isle Grill Corp v Detroit, 256 Mich App 463, 469; 666 NW2d 271 (2003). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision [of the trial court] results in an outcome falling outside the principled range of outcomes." Woodard v Custer, 476 Mich 545, 557; 719 NW2d 842 (2006).

First, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred when it failed to address defense counsel's failure to file an appearance before filing a responsive pleading. MCR 2.117(B)(2)(a) requires that an attorney must file a written appearance only if the attorney makes an appearance on behalf of the party "in a manner not involving the filing of a paper with the court." Therefore, if an attorney files a paper with the court, the filing is deemed notice of the attorney's appearance.

Although defense counsel did not file a written appearance with the trial court, counsel's first appearance before the trial court was to file a written motion for a more definite statement. Because counsel's first appearance involved the filing of a paper with the court, counsel did not need to file a written appearance to give notice of his appearance. See MCR 2.117(B)(2)(a). Therefore, no violation of the court rules occurred, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to address defendant's alleged violation.

Next, plaintiff argues that the trial court should have sanctioned defendant for failing to file a brief in support of its motion for a more definite statement. Pursuant to MCR 2.119(A)(2), when a motion presents an issue of law, the motion must be accompanied by a brief that cites the authority on which the motion is based. Although defendant did not file a supporting brief, defendant cited relevant authority supporting its position in the body of its motion. A supporting brief would have been superfluous in this circumstance. Because defendant cited relevant legal authority to support its motion, it did not violate the court rule to the extent that the trial court needed to remedy the violation by denying the motion. Thus, the trial court's failure to address the alleged violation was not an abuse of discretion.

Plaintiff also argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to address the deficient-service argument that he raised in response to defendant's motion for a more definite statement. Plaintiff argues that defendant improperly served its motion for a more definite statement by mailing it to him when he should have been personally served. MCR 2.107(C) requires that service on a party "must be made by delivery or by mailing to the party at the address stated in the party's pleadings." "Mailing" is defined as "enclosing it in a sealed envelope with first class postage fully prepaid, addressed to the person to be served, and depositing the envelope and its contents in the United States mail." MCR 2.107(C)(3). Plaintiff, therefore, was not entitled to personal service of defendant's motion. By plaintiff's own admission, defendant mailed the motion to him, and service by first-class, ordinary mail is a proper manner of service under MCR 2.107(C).

Further, the trial court did not err when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing before ruling on defendant's motion for a more definite statement. Plaintiff did not cite any authority to support his assertion that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. An argument must be supported by citation to an appropriate authority or policy, MCR 7.212(C)(7), and "[a]n appellant's failure to properly addressthe merits of his assertion of error constitutes abandonment of the issue." Peterson Novelties, Inc v City of Berkley, 259 Mich App 1, 14; 672 NW2d 351 (2003). In addition, plaintiff had ample opportunity to present evidence at two separate hearings before the trial court but failed to do so. Therefore, any error that occurred was harmless and plaintiff is not entitled to relief. See MCR 2.613(A).

In addition, the trial court did not err when it granted defendant's motion for a more definite statement. The complaint must contain "[a]...