Baynesan v. Wayne State University
316 Mich. App. 643
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Baynesan sued Wayne State University in Wayne Circuit Court alleging a Whistleblower’s Protection Act (WPA) money-damages claim and a public-policy equitable claim seeking reinstatement and injunctive relief.
- The equitable claim was dismissed in circuit court and re-filed in the Court of Claims; the Court of Claims then joined that tort action with the pending WPA claim in Wayne Circuit Court by order in June 2013.
- Late-2013 legislation (2013 PA 164) expanded the Court of Claims’ jurisdiction and created MCL 600.6404(3), allowing the state to transfer matters to the Court of Claims by filing a transfer notice; 2013 PA 205 preserved jury-trial rights and provided rules for joinder and stays under MCL 600.6421.
- WSU waited nearly a year and, on November 3, 2014 (shortly before a scheduled jury trial), filed a Notice of Transfer under MCL 600.6404(3) to move the entire case to the Court of Claims.
- Baynesan moved in the Court of Claims to transfer the case back to Wayne Circuit Court and sought sanctions; the Court of Claims found WSU’s late transfer notice ineffective because WSU’s conduct amounted to approval of joinder in circuit court and the late transfer would encourage forum-shopping.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the Court of Claims did not abuse its discretion in returning the case to circuit court and exercising its inherent docket-control/sanctioning authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was WSU’s §6404(3) transfer notice effective? | Baynesan argued the transfer was untimely and ineffective because WSU had litigated in circuit court after the transfer option existed, thereby consenting to circuit jurisdiction. | WSU argued the statute required only filing a transfer notice to move matters to Court of Claims, so its notice effected transfer. | Court: Transfer notice was ineffective on these facts because WSU’s prolonged litigation in circuit court manifested approval of joinder there. |
| Did joinder under MCL 600.6421(3) require formal consent? | Baynesan: No formal writing required; conduct can constitute approval. | WSU: Impliedly contended stricter or earlier transfer would control. | Court: Tacit approval by conduct sufficed; WSU’s conduct defeated Court of Claims' exclusivity as to equitable claims. |
| How do jury-right protections interact with transfer? | Baynesan: Jury right preserved; circuit court retained concurrent jurisdiction over damage claims when jury right asserted. | WSU: Transfer would vest exclusive jurisdiction in Court of Claims subject to §6421(1) exceptions. | Court: §6421(1) preserves jury-trial rights; if transfer were valid, damages claims remain in concurrent court but equitable claims stay in Court of Claims and must be resolved first. |
| Was the Court of Claims’ decision to remand an appropriate exercise of inherent authority/sanctions? | Baynesan: Remand was a reasonable, non-drastic sanction to prevent forum-shopping and respect prior consent to circuit venue. | WSU: Implicitly argued remand was improper because statute mandated transfer upon notice. | Court: Remand was within the Court of Claims’ inherent docket-control and sanctioning authority and not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banta v. Serban, 370 Mich. 367 (court’s inherent sanctioning authority recognizes non-dismissal sanctions)
- Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich. 372 (trial courts have inherent power to manage dockets and impose sanctions)
- Anzaldua v. Band, 457 Mich. 530 (WPA monetary claims carry jury-trial right; equitable WPA claims do not)
- Fulicea v. State of Michigan, 308 Mich. App. 230 (discussing effect of 2013 Court of Claims jurisdictional changes)
- Brenner v. Kolk, 226 Mich. App. 149 (standards for courts’ exercise of inherent authority)