Progress Michigan v. Attorney General
922 N.W.2d 654
Mich. Ct. App.2018Background
- Progress Michigan requested all personal-account emails of 21 AG staff about official functions (from Nov. 1, 2010); the AG denied the request (Oct. 19, 2016) and denied the internal appeal (Dec. 12, 2016).
- Progress filed a FOIA suit in the Court of Claims on April 11, 2017 (within FOIA’s 180-day window) but the original complaint was unsigned and unverified.
- The AG moved to dismiss under the Court of Claims Act requirement that claims be signed and verified; Progress filed an amended, signed, verified complaint on May 26, 2017 (after the 180-day FOIA period).
- The Court of Claims denied the AG’s motion, holding the amended complaint cured the defect and related back to the original filing date; it dismissed Progress’s separate Management and Budget Act count for lack of a private right of action.
- The AG appealed, arguing (1) an unsigned, unverified original complaint is a nullity under the Court of Claims Act so it cannot be amended to relate back, and (2) Progress’s FOIA claim is time-barred because the amended complaint was filed after FOIA’s 180-day limitations period.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it held the initial complaint was void for failure to meet Court of Claims Act prerequisites, so the later amended complaint could not relate back and the FOIA claim was untimely; summary disposition for the AG was ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plaintiff may cure an unsigned, unverified Court of Claims complaint by filing a later signed, verified amended complaint that relates back | Progress: court rules allow amendment; amended complaint should relate back to the timely original | AG: original complaint was void under MCL 600.6431(1); a void claim cannot be amended or relate back | Held: original complaint was a nullity for lack of signature/verification; amended complaint cannot relate back and thus is untimely |
| Whether FOIA’s 180-day limitations period was tolled by the filing of the defective original complaint | Progress: original filing tolled FOIA period; amendment makes filing timely | AG: defective filing is a nullity and does not toll FOIA period | Held: FOIA period started at denial and was not tolled by the defective filing; amended complaint was filed after 180 days and is time-barred |
| Whether Court of Claims Act prerequisites yield an immunity-related, appealable order | Progress: disclosure claims not subject to governmental immunity; FOIA waives immunity | AG: failure to comply implicates governmental immunity conditions precedent | Held: denial of summary disposition for failure to comply with MCL 600.6431(1) is a denial of governmental immunity and is appealable of right |
| Whether court rules (MCR 2.118) can override statutory prerequisites in Court of Claims Act and FOIA | Progress: court rules permitting amendment control | AG: statutes control over conflicting court rules; statutory prerequisites are strict | Held: statutory prerequisites govern; court rules cannot revive an otherwise void claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Fairley v. Dep’t of Corrections, 497 Mich. 290 (2015) (Court of Claims Act conditions are prerequisites to avoiding governmental immunity)
- McCahan v. Brennan, 492 Mich. 730 (2012) (Court of Claims Act timing and prerequisites must be construed as a cohesive whole)
- Scarsella v. Pollak, 461 Mich. 547 (2000) (failure to satisfy statutory filing prerequisites renders the initial filing insufficient to commence the action)
- Greenfield Const. Co. v. Mich. Dep’t of State Highways, 402 Mich. 172 (1978) (post–Court of Claims Act waivers of immunity are limited by Court of Claims Act jurisdictional terms)
- Dextrom v. Wexford County, 287 Mich. App. 406 (2010) (standards for reviewing MCR 2.116(C)(7) motions and treating pleadings as true unless contradicted)
- Genesee County Drain Comm’r v. Genesee County, 309 Mich. App. 317 (2015) (MCR 2.116(C)(7) can be granted where claims are barred by statute of limitations)