Paulette Stenzel v. Best Buy Company Inc
328804
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Stenzel) filed an amended complaint adding Samsung as a defendant after Samsung was identified as a nonparty at fault; she did so without first filing a motion for leave to amend.
- Michigan statute MCL 600.2957(2) allows adding an identified nonparty as a defendant upon motion within 91 days of identification and provides that a cause of action added under the subsection is not barred by the statute of limitations unless it would have been barred when the original action was filed.
- Michigan Court Rule MCR 2.112(K)(4) permits a party to file an amended pleading naming a nonparty within 91 days of service of the notice identifying the nonparty and does not explicitly require a motion or mention relation back/statute-of-limitations tolling.
- MCR 2.118(D) governs relation back generally (amendment relates back if it arises out of the same conduct/transaction/occurrence) but the Supreme Court in Miller held relation back doesn’t necessarily cover addition of new parties.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Samsung based on plaintiff’s failure to file a motion to invoke MCL 600.2957(2) and the alleged absence of a relation-back/tolling effect under the court rule; the appellate majority found the rule controls and plaintiff prevailed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 600.2957(2) and MCR 2.112(K) conflict such that the court rule supersedes the statute | Stenzel: both allow timely amendment; statute’s tolling/"relation back" applies even if amended without a motion | Samsung: court rule controls procedure, does not include relation-back/tolling; plaintiff cannot get statute’s benefits by relying on the rule | Majority: rule governs procedural practice and controls; plaintiff prevailed. (Concurring opinion: no irreconcilable conflict; both can be harmonized and statute’s tolling applies) |
| Whether an amended complaint filed without a motion can obtain statute-of-limitations protection under MCL 600.2957(2) | Stenzel: yes—statute’s suspension of limitations applies to causes added under the subsection even if amendment was filed under the rule | Samsung: no—because plaintiff used the court-rule route, which lacks tolling language, she cannot claim the statute’s relation-back protection | Held: Majority found plaintiff entitled to relief; concurrence would also apply statute’s tolling without finding conflict |
| Whether MCR 2.118(D) relation-back doctrine governs addition of new parties here | Stenzel: statute’s specific tolling governs and fills rule’s silence; relation-back concept is consistent | Samsung: rule lacks relation-back language; Miller limits relation back for new parties | Held: Concurrence: statute and MCR 2.118(D) are harmonious for this statutory scheme; majority relied on rule supremacy but reached same result for plaintiff |
| Whether the court should harmonize statute and rule or declare irreconcilable conflict | Stenzel: provisions are complementary; court should harmonize and enforce statutory tolling | Samsung: urged rule-based limitation; relied on procedural supremacy | Held: Majority declared conflict resolved in favor of court rule as procedural; concurrence rejected conflict and harmonized both provisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Apsey v. Memorial Hosp., 477 Mich 120 (2007) (Supreme Court: coexisting statutory alternatives may be harmonized rather than treated as conflicting)
- Miller v. Chapman Contracting Co., 477 Mich 102 (2007) (Supreme Court: relation-back rule does not necessarily encompass addition of new parties)
- People v. Watkins, 491 Mich 450 (2012) (statute may supplant court rule only in cases of irreconcilable conflict; court-rule authority under Const 1963, art 6, §5)
- McDougall v. Schanz, 461 Mich 15 (1999) (example of conflict between statute and court rule in evidentiary/procedural context)
- Jackson v. PKM Corp., 430 Mich 262 (1988) (when Legislature enacts a comprehensive statutory scheme intended to preempt common law, the statute controls)
- Holton v. A+ Ins. Assoc., Inc., 255 Mich App 318 (2003) (trial court rule 2.112(K)(4) was promulgated to implement MCL 600.2957)
- Bint v. Doe, 274 Mich App 232 (2007) (concurring opinion: statute and rule address different actors—plaintiff may elect to amend; court shall grant leave)