Opinion
No. 350894
09-17-2020
PETER DEFILIPPIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS and REDFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees.
If this opinion indicates that it is "FOR PUBLICATION," it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. UNPUBLISHED Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 17-015903-AV Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and O'BRIEN and SWARTZLE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's order awarding the Redford Police Department $8,876 in actual and punitive damages in light of plaintiff's vexatious filings. We affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed several complaints of discrimination with the Department of Civil Rights against the Redford Police Department stemming from the investigation and prosecution of plaintiff in Redford Township for telephonic harassment and a subsequent guilty plea for driving without a license. Regarding the instant complaint, plaintiff appealed a decision of the Department of Civil Rights in circuit court, where it was assigned to Judge Martha Snow. Plaintiff filed several motions for recusal of Judge Snow and alleged that Judge Snow was biased against him. Eventually, one of these motions was brought before Wayne Circuit Court Chief Judge Robert J. Colombo, Jr. who entered an order denying plaintiff's motion for recusal of Judge Snow.
Plaintiff appealed Judge Colombo's decision and, in early February 2019, we entered an order dismissing plaintiff's claim of appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the claim of appeal was untimely and the September 18, 2018 order appealed from was not a final order. DeFilippis v Dep't of Civil Rights, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered February 6, 2019 (Docket No. 346966). Shortly thereafter, the Redford Police Department filed a motion for sanctions for vexatious proceedings and argued that plaintiff's appeal was filed without any reasonable belief that a meritorious issue existed and violated court rules. The Redford Police Department also asserted plaintiff "repeatedly manifested his intent to burden" various agencies and courts with baseless filings and appeals, and requested an order precluding plaintiff from further submissions absent a prefiling review. We remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of actual damages, including attorney fees, and for the trial court to exercise its discretion in awarding punitive damages. DeFilippis v Dep't of Civil Rights, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered March 15, 2019 (Docket No. 346966).
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration which we denied. DeFilippis v Dep't of Civil Rights, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered April 30, 2019 (Docket No. 346966).
On remand, the Redford Police Department argued it was entitled to $4,335 in reasonable attorney fees: $960 for the work of attorney Jeffrey Clark, a partner at Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, PLC, who billed 3.2 hours at a rate of $300 per hour; and $3,375 for the work of attorney Jennifer Richards, an associate at Clark's law firm, who billed 12.5 hours at a rate of $270 per hour. Relying on the 2017 Economics of Law Practice Survey, the Redford Police Department argued the billing rates for Clark and Richards fell within the applicable ranges for fees customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services. The Redford Police Department argued that the factors in Wood v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch, 413 Mich 573; 321 NW2d 653 (1982), and MRPC 1.5(a), justified an upward adjustment from the baseline rate of $260 because the professional standing and experience of Clark and Richards, nature and length of the relationship with the client, novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the results achieved all justified an upward adjustment from the baseline rate of $260 to $270 and $300 for the work of Richards and Clark, respectively. Actual damages totaled of $4,438, and the Redford Police Department requested an additional $4,438 in punitive damages. Plaintiff responded, but did not address any of the Redford Police Department's arguments, and instead requested again for Judge Snow to recuse herself.
The trial court awarded the Redford Police Department $4,438 in actual costs and $4,438 in punitive damages. This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
We lack jurisdiction to review the trial court's decision to impose punitive damages. MCR 7.203(A)(1) limits the appeal taken under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iv) to the portion of the order with respect to which there is an appeal of right, which is the award of attorney fees, and "any issue outside those challenging the award of attorney fees goes beyond our jurisdiction . . . ." Pioneer State Mut Ins Co v Michalek, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2019) (Docket Nos. 344567; 344577); slip op at 3. Therefore, our review is limited to plaintiff's claims of error regarding the trial court's award of actual damages.
Plaintiff states that he was denied due process and deprived of his constitutional and civil rights. In the opening lines of plaintiff's brief on appeal, he states, "The Appellant is neither a lawyer by trade nor has any interest the study of law. Accordingly, I am not schooled in the study of case law and statutes and will not be stating any herewith." (Emphasis in original.) Plaintiff cites no supporting legal authority for any of his claims on appeal. Houghton ex rel Johnson v Keller, 256 Mich App 336, 339; 662 NW2d 854 (2003) (an appellant may not merely announce his position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, nor may he give issues cursory treatment with little or no citation of supporting authority). Plaintiff abandoned this claim, and additionally, his argument is outside the scope of the remand order. Id. at 339-340 (an appellant's failure to properly address the merits of his assertion of error constitutes abandonment of the issues); K&K Constr, Inc v Dep't of Environmental Quality, 267 Mich App 523, 544-545; 705 NW2d 365 (2005) (when an appellate court remands a case with clear instructions, the lower court is obligated on remand to strictly comply with the appellate court's mandate, and it is improper for a lower court to exceed the scope of the order). Plaintiff also asserts that the trial court erred because the Redford Police Department did not provide any evidence supporting the damages award. Again, plaintiff cites no supporting authority or legal analysis, and his "failure to properly address the merits of his assertion of error constitutes abandonment of the issues." Houghton, 256 Mich App 336, 339. Accordingly, we decline to consider these issues.
Additionally, plaintiff's claim is without merit. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the requested attorney fees were reasonable, and its ultimate award of $4,438 in actual damages was not clearly erroneous. The trial court properly considered the appropriate factors correctly concluded that the requested attorney fees were reasonable. Wood, 413 Mich at 588; Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519; 751 NW2d 472 (2008). Clark and Richards are experienced attorneys in the field of municipal law and have been recognized for their contributions to that practice area. This case involved numerous complaints, motions, and appeals across various courts and administrative proceedings, dating back to at least 2013. The highlighted portions of the invoice from Clark and Richards add up to 3.2 hours for Clark and 12.5 hours for Richards and, at their respective rates, came out to $960 for Clark's services and $3,375 for Richards's services, on top of the $103 filing fee. Plaintiff filed countless complaints, motions, and appeals. Given the lengthy and often difficult task involved to analyze the nature of plaintiff's various filings, the trial court's conclusion that these hours were not only reasonable, but minimal, was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we discern no error. --------
III. CONCLUSION
We discern no error in the trial court's award of damages. Accordingly, we affirm.
/s/ Michael J. Riordan
/s/ Colleen A. O'Brien
/s/ Brock A. Swartzle