Mary Ma v. Lawrence J Weber
332462
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 15, 2017Background
- Mary Ma was an AEP mechanical engineer and supervisor for ~11 years; she had recurring interpersonal conflicts with coworkers and supervisors and was terminated on June 17, 2011.
- Ma brought a federal suit (bench trial) against AEP and some managers claiming retaliation for reporting safety concerns under 42 U.S.C. §5851; the federal court found she was fired for persistent interpersonal/professional shortcomings, not protected whistleblowing.
- Ma then sued several AEP employees in Michigan state court for tortious interference with business relations, alleging they conspired to cause her termination.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10); the state trial court granted the motion but declined to rely on the federal findings.
- Defendants sought attorney fees (MCR 2.114 / MCL 600.2591) and taxation of deposition costs; the trial court denied fees and denied taxation of the deposition transcript costs.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition (holding the federal factual findings were preclusive) and affirmed denial of fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court’s factual findings about the reason for Ma’s discharge are preclusive in Ma’s state tort suit (collateral estoppel) | Ma argued the state defendants are different parties and she should be allowed to litigate whether they acted solely for personal reasons | Defendants argued the federal court already decided the dispositive issue (reason for discharge); collateral estoppel bars relitigation | Held: Collateral estoppel applies; federal bench findings that termination was due to Ma’s interpersonal failures preclude relitigation and require dismissal of tortious interference claim |
| Whether defendants are liable for tortious interference given they were AEP employees (agent/third-party issue) | Ma argued defendants acted solely for their own benefit (not as corporate agents) in causing her discharge | Defendants argued they acted within their corporate roles and any actions benefited AEP; corporate agents are not liable unless acting solely for personal gain | Held: Federal findings show defendants’ actions served AEP’s interest; Ma failed to show they acted solely for personal benefit, so claim fails |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying attorney fees and sanctions under MCR 2.114 and MCL 600.2591 (frivolous suit) | Ma contended her complaint was made in good faith based on her sincere belief that coworkers conspired against her | Defendants contended the complaint lacked factual and legal basis and was brought to harass | Held: No abuse of discretion; complaint was not frivolous at filing — Ma had a reasonable, good-faith basis to sue despite losing later in federal court |
| Whether deposition transcript and related costs were taxable under MCL 600.2549 | Defendants argued deposition transcripts were "necessarily used" for summary-disposition briefing and thus taxable | Ma argued statute permits taxation only if depositions were read into evidence at trial or otherwise not taxable; trial court disallowed costs | Held: Costs not taxable — MCL 600.2549 permits taxation of deposition fees only if the depositions were read into evidence at trial (or when damages were assessed); transcripts here were not read at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Ma v. American Electric Power, Inc., 123 F. Supp. 3d 955 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (bench trial findings that Ma was terminated for interpersonal/professional shortcomings)
- Ma v. American Elec. Power, Inc., [citation="647 F. App'x 641"] (6th Cir. 2016) (affirming federal district court decision)
- Monat v. State Farm Ins. Co., 469 Mich. 679 (2004) (defensive collateral estoppel and fairness/substantial-justice analysis)
- Louya v. William Beaumont Hosp., 190 Mich. App. 151 (1991) (standard for frivolous action under MCL 600.2591 and focus on plaintiff’s reasonable belief at filing)
- Dalley v. Dykema Gossett, 287 Mich. App. 296 (2010) (elements of tortious interference with business relations)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (1999) (standard for reviewing summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10))