PHILIP H BLANKFELD V STEPHEN R MARDIGIAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PHILIP H. BLANKFELD,
UNPUBLISHED
June 29, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
STEPHEN R. MARDIGIAN, BEST GROUP, INC.,
BEST WRECKING, INC., BEST GROUP
MARINE AND SALVAGE, INC. and BEST
GROUP OF TEXAS, INC.,
No. 205137
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 96-522823 CK
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Murphy and O’Connell, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the order dismissing his complaint and denying his motion for
rehearing. We reverse and remand.
Plaintiff argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendants’ motion
for dismissal for his discovery violations. We agree. This Court has recognized that dismissal of a claim
is a drastic sanction that should be taken cautiously. See Vicencio v. Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501,
506; 536 NW2d 280 (1995). Before imposing dismissal as a sanction, the trial court must carefully
evaluate all available options on the record and conclude that dismissal is just and proper. Id.; Hanks v
SLB Management, Inc, 188 Mich App 656, 658; 471 NW2d 621 (1991). Because plaintiff did not
violate any court order with respect to discovery and because the trial court failed to evaluate on the
record all available options, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiff’s
case without first exploring the possibility of imposing a less harsh sanction or ordering plaintiff to
comply with discovery. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision to dismiss this case, and we
remand this case to the trial court with instructions that the trial court consider all available options for
plaintiff’s perceived discovery abuses.
-1
In light of our resolution of this case, we need not address plaintiff’s claim that the trial court
erred in denying his motion for rehearing.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.