DALTON SANDERS V DEPT OF CORRECTIONS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DALTON SANDERS,
UNPUBLISHED
January 12, 2006
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROBERT
BROWN, JR., LYNN GREEN, M.D., DEAN
RIEGER, M.D., GLORIA SMITH, D.D.S., and
WILLIAM J. BYLAND, D.D.S.,
No. 255356
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 89-931148-CZ
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Smolenski and Talbot, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order granting defendants’ motion for
case evaluation sanctions. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff does not dispute that defendants were entitled to case evaluation sanctions. He
contends only that the attorney fees awarded were not strictly necessitated by his rejection of the
case evaluation, and thus were not compensable. The amount of sanctions awarded is reviewed
for an abuse of discretion. Campbell v Sullins, 257 Mich App 179, 197; 667 NW2d 887 (2003).
An abuse of discretion exists when an unprejudiced person would find that there was no
justification or excuse for the court’s ruling. Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749,
761-762; 685 NW2d 391 (2004).
The costs to be awarded include taxable costs plus a reasonable attorney fee based on a
reasonable hourly or daily rate as determined by the trial court for services necessitated by the
rejection of the case evaluation. MCR 2.403(O)(6). In order to be compensable under MCR
2.403(O)(6), there must be a causal nexus between the rejection of the case evaluation and the
incurred expenses. Haliw v Sterling Heights, 471 Mich 700, 711 n 8; 691 NW2d 753 (2005)
(rejecting prior decisions that have construed “necessitated by the rejection” as a mere temporal
demarcation).
Despite the fact that the case was ignored for ten years after being remanded to the
district court, defendants did not request, and the trial court did not award, any fees incurred
during that time. The only fees awarded were those incurred after the case had been returned to
-1-
circuit court and the parties prepared for trial. Further, the trial court disallowed over $2,000 in
attorney fees, which were attributable to events outside plaintiff’s control. Likewise, because the
trial court did not grant defendants’ dispositive motion in its entirety, defendants’ trial counsel
still had to prepare for trial and attend court hearings. It was only due to plaintiff’s decision to
dismiss his remaining claims for appeal purposes that the case did not actually proceed to trial.1
Thus, the trial preparation fees were properly attributable to plaintiff’s rejection of the case
evaluation. Consequently, on the record before us, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused
its discretion.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
1
Further, we find plaintiff’s contention that much of the time spent by defendants’ trial counsel
on this case must have been the result of the “extraordinary circumstances caused by the 10 year
interruption of the case” to be mere speculation.
-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.
