VITEC LLC V CHARLES A YOUNG III
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
VITEC, LLC,
UNPUBLISHED
February 10, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
CHARLES A. YOUNG III, ANNA CALDERON,
YDL-SYNERGY, LLC, LEWIS D. DENNEN and
THEODORE B. LAWRENCE,
No. 243732
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 02-203749-CZ
Defendants-Appellees,
ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS & SUPPORT,
INC.,
Defendant.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Schuette and Borrello, JJ.
BORRELLO, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with my brother judges’ opinion to dismiss Dennen, but I would affirm the trial
court’s ruling as to the other defendants.
Plaintiff instituted this action to recover monies from defendants. As the majority
correctly points out, plaintiff refused to attend his deposition on numerous occasions. It is
incomprehensible why an individual would institute an action and then refuse to participate
unless the only motive to undertake the lawsuit was to harass defendants. Plaintiff’s refusal to
comply with discovery not only prejudiced defendant Dennen, it prejudiced all defendants in this
action.
The trial court gave plaintiff ample opportunities to cure his noncompliance. Plaintiff
was threatened with sanctions and admonished, all to no avail. Thus, I would find no abuse of
discretion by the trial court in dismissing this action against all defendants.
The majority states in its conclusion that “a lesser sanction would have better served
justice . . . ”, but it does not direct the trial court to enter any such “lesser” sanctions. I would
order the plaintiff to pay all costs and attorney fees related to this appeal as an appropriate
sanction.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
-1-
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.
