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STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PHILIP H. BLANKFELD, UNPUBLISHED June 29, 1999 Plaintiff-Appellant, v STEPHEN R. MARDIGIAN, BEST GROUP, INC., BEST WRECKING, INC., BEST GROUP MARINE AND SALVAGE, INC.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.