Matthew S Deperno v. Albert W Laaksonen II, 328739

Matthew S. DePerno and his firm sued Albert W. Laaksonen II and his firm after Laaksonen, representing Cathleen and Ronald Moffit, filed a complaint and amended complaint against DePerno asserting fee and tort claims (malpractice, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress).
The Moffits’ original dispute involved a contested attorney fee (DePerno sought ~$137,000) arising from representation after a house fire; the relationship deteriorated and the Moffits later sued DePerno.
The Moffits’ suit was later settled; Laaksonen’s settlement memorandum stated the case was “solely a fee dispute,” though the filed pleadings included tort allegations.
DePerno then sued Laaksonen and his firm for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the statements in the Moffits’ pleadings and circulation of those pleadings.
Defendants moved to set aside an entered default, for summary disposition, and asserted judicial‑proceedings and fair‑reporting privileges; the trial court set aside the default, denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike certain exhibits, granted summary disposition for defendants, and denied reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the default was properly set aside, striking/sanctions were not warranted, and the challenged statements were privileged (judicial‑proceedings and fair‑reporting).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Setting aside default	Default against Laaksonen was valid; date stamp unreliable	Motion for summary disposition was timely filed (court‑stamped May 14) so default was erroneous	Court set aside default; date stamp controls and no contrary record evidence
2. Motion to strike exhibits / sanctions	Interoffice memorandum was privileged/confidential and included to harass; should be struck and sanctions imposed	Memorandum was publicly available and relevant to fee dispute; not improper	Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying strike and sanctions
3. Summary disposition on defamation claims	Allegations beyond fee dispute (assault, malpractice) were false and unprivileged; defendants acted maliciously	Allegations were part of judicial proceedings and circulation was a fair and true report of public records	Defendants protected by judicial‑proceedings privilege and MCL 600.2911(3) fair‑reporting privilege; summary disposition proper
4. Denial of reconsideration	New/renewed arguments show error in prior rulings	Reconsideration merely reasserts rejected arguments	Denial affirmed; no basis to reconsider

Saffian v. Simmons, 477 Mich. 8 (2007) (standard for abuse of discretion on setting aside default)
Epps v. 4 Quarters Restoration LLC, 498 Mich. 518 (2015) (abuse of discretion definition)
Huntington Nat’l Bank v. Ristich, 292 Mich. App. 376 (2011) (effect of motion for summary disposition on timing of responsive pleadings)
Feyz v. Mercy Memorial Hosp., 475 Mich. 663 (2006) (MCR 2.116(C)(8) motion tests legal sufficiency of complaint)
Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21 (2005) (elements of defamation)
Oesterle v. Wallace, 272 Mich. App. 260 (2006) (judicial‑proceedings privilege protects statements by litigants if relevant/pertinent)
Northland Wheels Roller Skating Center, Inc. v. Detroit Free Press, Inc., 213 Mich. App. 317 (1995) (scope of fair‑reporting privilege)
Walters v. Nadell, 481 Mich. 377 (2008) (preservation requirement for admissibility challenges)