Amelia Quelas v. Daimler Trucks North America LLC
330363
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2017Background
- Amelia Quelas, a U.S. national, worked in Mexico for Detroit Diesel Allison de México (DDAM) as an employee assigned by Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC)/Freightliner; Daimler later acquired the business. She lived and worked in Mexico for about 10 years.
- In 2007 Daimler suspended Quelas, investigated alleged misconduct, and later ceased pay when she did not choose offered options; she then filed claims before the Mexican Labor Board seeking reinstatement/back wages or severance.
- Quelas pursued two Mexican labor actions (one culminating in a large award later vacated in part on appeal; a separate later proceeding produced a final order awarding back wages and severance totaling about $1.7M).
- In Michigan (2012) Quelas sued Daimler and DDC for breach of contract, wrongful termination (ELCRA), IIED, and aiding and abetting; defendants moved for summary disposition asserting Mexican law governs and bars the claims.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants; subsequent disputes included defendants’ motion for attorney fees under MCL 600.2591 (denied), defendants’ request for sanctions under MCR 2.114 (denied but that denial vacated on appeal), and taxation of expert-witness fees (~$300,000) as costs (awarded, but remanded to correct a $4,330.50 computation error).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for contract and related claims | Michigan law should govern; Quelas had connections to Michigan (paid by DDC, some supervision from Michigan) | Most significant contacts are Mexico (place of performance, subject matter, and domicile during employment); Mexican law should apply | Mexican law governs the contract and related claims; summary disposition affirmed |
| Applicability of Michigan tort statute (ELCRA) | ELCRA should apply to her wrongful-termination/discrimination claim | Mexico has the greater interest; the alleged discriminatory conduct and harms occurred in Mexico | Michigan law displaced; ELCRA claim fails under choice-of-law analysis |
| Frivolous-suit attorney fees under MCL 600.2591 | Suit was not frivolous; reasonable basis existed to bring claims | The suit lacked merit and was frivolous; fees requested ~ $1.85M | Trial court did not clearly err in denying fees; appeal affirmed (no award) |
| Taxability of expert witness fees under MCR 2.625 / admissibility under MRE 702 | SRR fees mainly compiled data / would be inadmissible; not taxable | SRR provided expert opinion (not mere data assembly), methodology was reliable and relevant; expert fees taxable | Trial court did not abuse discretion: SRR fees taxable as expert costs; award affirmed but reduced by $4,330.50 for arithmetic error |
| Sanctions under MCR 2.114 for a stay-motion filing | Motion was supported; no sanctionable conduct | Counsel failed reasonable inquiry into Mexican decision prior to filing; sanctions appropriate | Trial court’s prior denial of sanctions vacated; remanded for focused reconsideration whether counsel performed reasonable inquiry before filing motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (Mich. 1999) (standards for summary disposition and admissible supporting material)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Skyline Indus. Servs., Inc., 448 Mich. 113 (Mich. 1995) (use Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §188 for contract choice-of-law)
- Burney v. P V Holding Corp., 218 Mich. App. 167 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996) (conflicts-of-law review standard)
- Louya v. William Beaumont Hosp., 190 Mich. App. 151 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (frivolous-suit analysis under MCL 600.2591 focuses on facts known at filing)
- Van Elslander v. Thomas Sebold & Assoc., Inc., 297 Mich. App. 204 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (taxability and limits of expert witness fees under MCR 2.625)
- Elher v. Misra, 499 Mich. 11 (Mich. 2016) (MRE 702 and Daubert standards applied in Michigan)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeper role for trial courts on expert admissibility)
- Hartland v. Kucykowicz, 189 Mich. App. 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (differentiating taxable expert work from nontaxable consultation/data assembly)
- Craig ex rel Craig v. Oakwood Hosp., 471 Mich. 67 (Mich. 2004) (expert testimony must assist the trier of fact under MRE 702)