GEORGE STEVENS V EQUITY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GEORGE STEVENS,
UNPUBLISHED
November 12, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 235201
Leelanau Circuit Court
LC No. 00-005340-CB
EQUITY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT,
L.L.C., and MARIE PASCHE,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Gage and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting defendants’ motion for dismissal under
MCR 2.504(B). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
Approximately two months after this action was filed, the trial court entered a civil
scheduling order providing deadlines for the exchange of witness lists and exhibits, discovery,
mediation, case evaluation, motions, and trial briefs. At the final pretrial conference, defendants
moved for dismissal based on multiple violations of the scheduling order. Plaintiff failed to
provide a witness list, did not comply with a request for the production of documents, failed to
attend the case evaluation or file a brief, and did not bring a trial brief to the final hearing. The
trial court found that plaintiff exhibited complete ignorance of the scheduling order and
dismissed the case with prejudice.
MCR 2.504(B) authorizes a court to enter an involuntary dismissal if a plaintiff fails to
comply with a court order. This Court will review a trial court’s decision to dismiss for abuse of
discretion. Thorne v Carter, 149 Mich App 90, 93; 385 NW2d 738 (1986).
Factors to be considered by the court in determining an appropriate sanction include (1)
whether the violation was wilful or accidental, (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with
discovery, (3) prejudice to defendant, (4) actual notice to the defendant, (5) the party’s history of
intentional delay, (6) the party’s compliance with orders of the court, (7) the party’s attempt to
cure the defect, and (8) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice.
Dane v Tucker, 182 Mich App 27, 32-33; 451 NW2d 571 (1990).
-1-
Although plaintiff argues that counsel’s inaction was not wilful, the explanations counsel
gave were inadequate. The reasons given showed that counsel totally ignored the scheduling
order. The trial court could reasonably find that the violations were repeated and wilful,
defendants were prejudiced by the violations, plaintiff did not attempt to cure the defects, and no
lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
