Opinion
364222
01-24-2023
Robert Davis v. Wayne Circuit Judge
Michael F. Gadola, Presiding Judge, Christopher M. Murray, Michael J. Riordan, Judges
ORDER
The motion to file an amicus curiae brief on behalf of defendants is GRANTED. The brief that was received on January 11, 2023, is accepted for filing.
The motion for "summary disposition" is DENIED because it is not the type of pleading or brief that may be filed in response to an original action in this Court. See MCR 7.206(D)(2).
The motion for immediate consideration of the motion to file an amended/corrected response is GRANTED.
The motion to file an amended/corrected response is GRANTED and the amended/corrected response filed with the motion is accepted.
The complaint for quo warranto is DENIED.
The Court also concludes that plaintiff Davis has submitted a frivolous pleading and did so for an improper purpose, i.e., to harass defendants. He is therefore subject to sanctions. MCR 1.109(E)(5)(b)&(c); MCR 1.109(E)(7)(allowing court to impose sanctions for "a party pleading a frivolous claim or defense.").
Our conclusion is based in large part on the undisputed fact that this is the fifth time Davis has raised the exact issue raised in the current complaint. His arguments were rejected in all prior four cases. See Davis v Benson et al, opinion and order of the Court of Claims, issued September 2, 2022 (Docket Nos. 22-00125; 22-000141-MZ; 22-000143-MZ); Davis v Wayne Co Election Comm et al., opinion and order of the Wayne Circuit Court, issued October 28, 2022 (Docket No. 22-008866-AW); Davis v Third Judicial Circuit, opinion and order of the Court of Claims, issued November 11, 2022 (Docket Nos. 22-000121-MM; 22-000163-MM), and Davis v Wayne Co, opinion and order of the Wayne Circuit Court, issued December 7, 2022 (Docket No. 22-013908-AW). While he has slightly changed the way in which the issue was presented, he has nevertheless persisted in raising the issue despite four prior dismissals on the merits.
Moreover, after the first claim was dismissed for being untimely, he has subsequently filed four repetitive claims, with each one being filed later than the others. And the instant case is essentially an impermissible collateral attack-albeit with a new label-on all the prior actions. Given the repeated dismissals of his claims, including the dismissal of a prior action for quo warranto, we hold that the instant January 24, 2023 action is frivolous and that plaintiff Davis signed the complaint in violation of MCR 1.109(E)(5)-(6). Plaintiff Davis could not reasonably believe that, after having four actions dismissed for being untimely, a fifth action, which was filed later still, would somehow be timely or meritorious. Nor could he reasonably believe that he could continue to raise the same issue that has repeatedly been rejected by other courts.
Moreover, in light of the repeat nature of these filings and the number of months he has continued to raise the same issues over and over again, we find that he has brought this complaint for an improper purpose: to harass defendants. Indeed, he has persisted in raising this issue despite having his underlying claim rejected time after time. Even the election-and a prior dismissal of an action for quo warranto- did not stop his efforts. With this being his fifth bite at the apple, there can be no reasonable belief in the merits of plaintiffs' claim, making it apparent that the purpose of this action was to harass defendants.
A document signed in violation of the rule allows the Court, on its own motion or on a motion of a party, to impose sanctions on the signer, "which may include an order to pay the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the document, including reasonable attorney fees." MCR 1.109(E)(6). The sanctions available under the rule include the relief afforded by MCR 2.625(A)(2) and MCL 600.2591. These sanctions include "reasonable attorney fees" incurred by the prevailing party. MCL 600.2591(2). The party requesting fees bears the burden of demonstrating the reasonableness of the fees. Pioneer State Mutual Ins Co v Michalek, 330 Mich.App. 138, 148; 946 N.W.2d 812 (2019).
Defendants shall file within 21 days of the Clerk's certification of this order a brief outlining the reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred in defending this action, including all appropriate exhibits supporting those fees and costs. Plaintiff Davis may file a response within 14 days from the date defendants' brief is filed with this Court. The need for any further proceedings will be determined by the Court.