The Michigan Court Rules, specifically MCR 2.116, govern motions for summary disposition. This rule outlines various grounds upon which a party can move for summary disposition, including that the opposing party has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (MCR 2.116(C)(8)), that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (MCR 2.116(C)(10)), or that another disposition is appropriate. When a motion for summary disposition is filed under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the court must consider all the evidence submitted by the parties, including affidavits, depositions, and admissions, and view this evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. If the court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, it must grant the motion. If the court denies the motion, it must state the reasons for its decision, and the case proceeds. In this scenario, the plaintiff’s complaint, standing alone, fails to articulate a legally cognizable claim under Michigan law for the alleged breach of fiduciary duty, as the relationship described does not establish the requisite fiduciary capacity. Therefore, a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) would be appropriate, arguing failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The scenario involves a plaintiff, Mr. Abernathy, filing a complaint in Michigan state court against Ms. Dubois for breach of contract. The contract in question involves services rendered for a property located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Mr. Abernathy resides in Ohio, and Ms. Dubois resides in Illinois. The critical issue is establishing personal jurisdiction over Ms. Dubois in Michigan. Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.105 governs the assertion of personal jurisdiction. This rule allows for jurisdiction over a defendant who is personally served within the state, consents to jurisdiction, or has certain “minimum contacts” with Michigan such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The contract was for services related to Michigan property, and the alleged breach occurred in Michigan. These facts suggest that Ms. Dubois may have purposefully availed herself of the privilege of conducting activities within Michigan, thereby creating a sufficient nexus for the exercise of jurisdiction. Specifically, engaging in a contract for services on Michigan real estate can constitute purposeful availment. If Ms. Dubois’s actions were specifically directed towards Michigan and she reasonably anticipated being haled into court there due to those actions, then jurisdiction would likely be proper. The residence of the plaintiff or defendant in other states is secondary to the defendant’s connection with the forum state. Therefore, the most appropriate basis for asserting personal jurisdiction over Ms. Dubois in Michigan, given the contract’s subject matter and the alleged situs of the breach, is her minimum contacts with the state.

The scenario involves a plaintiff filing a lawsuit in Michigan state court. The defendant, a corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio, is served with process in Michigan. The plaintiff’s claim arises from a contract dispute where the defendant allegedly breached a supply agreement with a Michigan-based manufacturer. The core issue is whether the Michigan court has personal jurisdiction over the Ohio corporation. Michigan’s long-arm statute, MCR 2.105, grants jurisdiction over parties who have transacted business within Michigan. The defendant’s actions, specifically entering into a contract with a Michigan entity and allegedly breaching that contract, which had foreseeable consequences within Michigan, likely establish sufficient minimum contacts with the state. This satisfies the due process requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment, ensuring the defendant has certain minimum contacts with Michigan such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Therefore, the Michigan court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The Michigan Court Rules, specifically MCR 2.116(G)(4), govern the procedure for motions for summary disposition. When a motion for summary disposition is filed based on the assertion that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and other permissible documentary evidence. If the court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, it must grant the motion for summary disposition. If the court finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists, it must deny the motion. MCR 2.116(C)(10) specifically addresses summary disposition based on the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The rule requires the court to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The core principle is to determine if a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party based on the presented evidence. If, after this assessment, no such reasonable jury finding is possible, the motion should be granted. Conversely, if the evidence, when viewed favorably to the non-moving party, could lead a reasonable jury to find in their favor, the motion must be denied, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The determination of whether a genuine issue of material fact exists is a threshold question of law for the court.

The Michigan Court Rules, specifically MCR 2.112(G)(1), govern the procedure for amending pleadings to include defenses that were not raised in the original responsive pleading. This rule states that if a party fails to assert a defense in a responsive pleading, the party waives that defense unless the party obtains leave of the court to amend the pleading to include the defense. When leave to amend is sought, the court must grant leave freely when justice so requires. However, this liberality is not absolute and courts consider factors such as undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment. In this scenario, the defendant, Mr. Abernathy, waited until the eve of trial, nearly two years after the initial complaint was filed and after substantial discovery had been completed, to seek to amend his answer to include the affirmative defense of statute of limitations. This delay, coupled with the potential for significant disruption to the trial schedule and the prejudice to the plaintiff, Ms. Chen, who has invested considerable resources in preparing for trial based on the existing pleadings, weighs heavily against granting leave. The court’s discretion is guided by the principle of promoting the efficient and fair administration of justice, which includes preventing parties from ambushing their opponents with new defenses late in the litigation. Given the extensive delay and the potential prejudice, the court would likely deny the motion to amend. The statute of limitations defense, if valid, could have been raised much earlier, and its late assertion suggests a potential lack of diligence. The court’s decision would hinge on balancing the liberality of amendment with the need to prevent prejudice and ensure a timely resolution.

In Michigan civil procedure, the concept of striking a pleading is governed by MCR 2.115. This rule allows a party to move to strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The rule also permits striking a pleading that is not in accordance with the court rules. When considering a motion to strike, the court examines the pleading to determine if it contains any of the specifically enumerated types of objectionable content. An insufficient defense, for example, would be one that, even if true, would not legally defeat the plaintiff’s claim. Redundant matter refers to unnecessary repetition, while immaterial matter has no relation to the cause of action. Impertinent matter is that which is irrelevant and does not pertain to the issues. Scandalous matter is that which is defamatory or reflects cruelly on a party’s character. The court has discretion in ruling on such motions, and the purpose is to streamline litigation by removing extraneous or legally deficient portions of a pleading, thereby focusing the case on the core issues. The motion must be filed within the time permitted for a responsive pleading or within 21 days after the pleading is served, if no responsive pleading is required.

The scenario involves a plaintiff filing a complaint in Michigan state court and subsequently serving the defendant. The core issue is whether the service of process was legally sufficient under Michigan Court Rules. Specifically, the question probes the requirements for personal service on an individual defendant. Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.105 governs service of process. MCR 2.105(A)(1) permits personal service by delivering a summons and a copy of the complaint to the defendant. MCR 2.105(B) further details methods of service, including leaving the documents with a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s dwelling house or usual place of abode. In this case, the process server left the documents with the defendant’s roommate. The crucial factor is whether the roommate constituted a “person of suitable age and discretion” and if the location was the defendant’s “dwelling house or usual place of abode.” Assuming the roommate was an adult and the apartment was indeed the defendant’s dwelling, this method of service would generally be considered valid personal service under MCR 2.105(B)(1). The question tests the understanding of these specific requirements for effective service of process in Michigan, which is a foundational element of due process and the commencement of a lawsuit. The validity of service impacts the court’s jurisdiction over the defendant.

In Michigan civil procedure, a motion for reconsideration is governed by MCR 2.119(F). This rule permits a party to file a motion for reconsideration of a final order or judgment within 21 days after the entry of the order or judgment. The motion must be supported by a affidavit or declaration setting forth the substance of the newly discovered evidence, the reasons for the failure to present the evidence earlier, and a statement that the evidence is true and believed to be material. The rule also allows for the motion to be based on a change in controlling law. Crucially, a motion for reconsideration does not extend the time for filing an appeal, unless the motion is filed within the initial 21-day period and the court grants an extension of time for filing the motion. If the motion is denied, the original deadline for appeal remains in effect. If the motion is granted, the court may vacate or amend the order, and a new appeal period may commence from the date of the new order. The purpose is to allow the court to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to consider newly discovered evidence. It is not intended as a vehicle for re-argument or to present issues that were available but not raised in the original motion or at the hearing. The filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the time for filing an appeal of the original order or judgment. Therefore, if an appeal deadline is approaching, a party must still file their appeal within the original timeframe, even if a motion for reconsideration is pending. The filing of the motion for reconsideration itself does not restart the appeal clock.

The scenario involves a defendant, Mr. Alistair Finch, who failed to respond to a complaint filed in Michigan state court within the prescribed 21 days after service of process. Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.108(A)(1) generally requires a defendant to file an answer within 21 days after being served with a summons and complaint. If a defendant fails to file an answer within this timeframe, the plaintiff may seek a default. MCR 2.603 governs defaults. Specifically, MCR 2.603(A) allows for the entry of a default by the court clerk upon request by the plaintiff if the defendant has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the rules. The question asks about the *immediate* next step available to the plaintiff. A default judgment, which is a final determination of the rights of the parties, requires a separate process after the default is entered, often involving notice and a hearing, as outlined in MCR 2.603(B). Therefore, the immediate and most appropriate next step after the expiration of the 21-day period for answering, without any responsive pleading having been filed, is to request the clerk to enter a default against Mr. Finch. This action formally acknowledges Mr. Finch’s failure to respond within the required time.

The scenario involves a civil action filed in Michigan state court. The plaintiff, a resident of Indiana, has sued a defendant, a Michigan corporation, for breach of contract. The contract was negotiated and signed in Ohio. The plaintiff seeks damages exceeding $75,000. To determine if the federal district court in Michigan has subject matter jurisdiction, we must consider diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants, meaning no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Here, the plaintiff is a citizen of Indiana, and the defendant is a Michigan corporation. Since Indiana and Michigan are different states, complete diversity exists. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, satisfying the monetary threshold. Therefore, the federal district court in Michigan would have subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the timing of a motion for a new trial under Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.611. Specifically, the rule dictates that a motion for a new trial must be filed within 21 days after the entry of the judgment. In this case, the judgment was entered on October 15th. Counting 21 days from October 15th, we arrive at November 5th. The motion was filed on November 7th. Since the filing occurred after the expiration of the 21-day period, the motion is untimely. While the court has discretion in certain procedural matters, the strict time limit for filing a motion for a new trial is a jurisdictional prerequisite that cannot be waived by the court absent specific exceptions not present here. Therefore, the motion for a new trial would be denied due to untimeliness. This understanding is crucial for practitioners in Michigan, as strict adherence to filing deadlines is paramount to preserve appellate rights and ensure the efficient administration of justice. The rule is designed to provide finality to judgments and prevent undue delay in post-trial proceedings.

The scenario involves a plaintiff filing a complaint in a Michigan circuit court. The defendant resides in Ohio and has no physical presence or business operations in Michigan, but they entered into a contract with a Michigan resident, Ms. Anya Sharma, that was to be performed in Michigan. Ms. Sharma is suing for breach of this contract. To establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant in Michigan, the court must determine if the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state. Michigan Court Rule 2.105 governs personal jurisdiction. Specifically, MCR 2.105(D) outlines grounds for asserting jurisdiction over persons who have transacted business within Michigan. Entering into a contract with a Michigan resident to be performed in Michigan generally constitutes transacting business within the state. The defendant’s actions, by contracting with Ms. Sharma for performance in Michigan, have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within Michigan, thus invoking the benefits and protections of Michigan law. This purposeful availment is a key factor in satisfying due process requirements for asserting personal jurisdiction. The fact that the defendant is an Ohio resident and has no physical presence in Michigan does not preclude jurisdiction if the contacts are sufficient and the exercise of jurisdiction is fair and reasonable. Therefore, Michigan courts would likely have personal jurisdiction over the defendant based on the transaction of business within the state.

The scenario presented involves a defendant, Ms. Anya Sharma, residing in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who allegedly breached a contract with a plaintiff, Mr. Kenji Tanaka, located in Chicago, Illinois. The contract was for the delivery of custom-made artisanal pottery. The core issue is whether the Michigan state courts have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Sharma. For a Michigan court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, the defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with Michigan such that the assertion of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. This is assessed under Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.105. MCR 2.105(D) specifies acts that confer jurisdiction. Specifically, MCR 2.105(D)(1) states that jurisdiction is conferred if the defendant “transacts any business within this state.” Ms. Sharma, by entering into a contract for goods to be delivered to a Michigan resident, and by her stated intention to ship the pottery to Michigan, has purposefully availed herself of the privilege of conducting activities within Michigan. The contract itself was for goods destined for Michigan. Even though Ms. Sharma is located in Michigan and the plaintiff is in Illinois, the transaction of business within Michigan, as evidenced by the contract and the intended delivery of goods into Michigan, establishes the necessary minimum contacts. The question is whether *this specific transaction* establishes jurisdiction in Michigan for a claim arising from that transaction. Since the contract was for pottery to be delivered to Michigan, and Ms. Sharma agreed to these terms, she has transacted business within Michigan for the purposes of MCR 2.105(D)(1). The claim arises directly from this business transacted in Michigan. Therefore, the Michigan court can exercise jurisdiction over Ms. Sharma for claims related to this contract. The calculation here is not a numerical one, but a legal analysis of jurisdictional predicates. The key is the purposeful availment of the Michigan forum through the contractual agreement and intended performance within the state.

In Michigan, the admissibility of evidence is governed by the Michigan Rules of Evidence. Specifically, Rule 702 addresses testimony by expert witnesses. This rule states that if the court is satisfied that the expert witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, the expert may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, is the product of reliable principles and methods, and the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. The Daubert standard, as adopted and refined in Michigan, requires the court to act as a gatekeeper to ensure that expert testimony is both relevant and reliable. This involves assessing the scientific validity of the methodology used by the expert, not necessarily the correctness of the expert’s conclusions. Factors to consider include whether the theory or technique can be tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, the known or potential rate of error, and the general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. The court’s role is to filter out unreliable or speculative expert testimony that could unfairly prejudice the jury.

In Michigan civil procedure, the concept of “relation back” for amended pleadings is governed by Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.118(C). This rule allows an amendment to relate back to the date of the original pleading if the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading. Crucially, the rule also requires that the party defending against the amended claim had notice of the action within the period provided by law for commencing the action against the new party. This notice requirement is critical for ensuring fairness and preventing prejudice. When a plaintiff seeks to add a new party or a new claim against an existing party through an amendment, the court must assess whether the amended pleading satisfies these conditions. The purpose is to allow amendments that correct technical defects or add claims that are factually intertwined with the original allegations, without unfairly surprising or disadvantaging the opposing party. If the original pleading did not provide sufficient notice of the claim or the identity of the party sought to be added, the amendment will not relate back, and the statute of limitations will be applied as if the amended pleading were a new filing. Therefore, the key inquiry is whether the original pleading provided adequate notice of the new claim or party, such that the defendant is not prejudiced by the amendment being treated as if filed at the earlier date.

The scenario involves a plaintiff filing a claim in Michigan state court and subsequently discovering that the defendant is a resident of Illinois. Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.105 governs service of process. Specifically, MCR 2.105(A)(1) permits service upon an individual in Michigan by delivering a summons and copy of the complaint to the defendant personally. If the defendant is outside of Michigan, MCR 2.105(A)(2) allows for service in a manner prescribed by the law of the state in which service is made, or by any means authorized by MCR 2.105(D). MCR 2.105(D) outlines methods for service outside Michigan, including personal service by a sheriff or other authorized process server in the state where the defendant is found, or by certified mail with a return receipt requested. Since the defendant resides in Illinois, service must be effectuated according to Illinois law or through the methods permitted by MCR 2.105(D). Simply mailing the documents without a return receipt or without utilizing a method recognized by Illinois law would be insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the Illinois resident in Michigan. Therefore, the plaintiff must ensure service is properly executed in Illinois according to either Illinois’ rules of civil procedure or the specified methods in MCR 2.105(D) to confer personal jurisdiction.

In Michigan, a party seeking to amend their pleadings after a responsive pleading has been filed must generally obtain the opposing party’s written consent or leave of the court. Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.118(A)(2) governs amendments to pleadings. This rule states that after a responsive pleading is served, a party may amend its pleading only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party. The court is generally required to grant leave freely when justice so requires. However, the rule does not specify a particular timeframe within which a party must seek leave to amend after a responsive pleading is filed, nor does it impose a strict deadline based on the filing of a responsive pleading itself. The critical factor is that a responsive pleading has been filed, triggering the requirement for consent or leave. The scenario describes a situation where a responsive pleading has been filed, and the plaintiff wishes to amend their complaint. Without the defendant’s written consent, the plaintiff must seek leave from the court. The timing of the motion for leave to amend, while subject to rules regarding diligence and avoiding prejudice, is not inherently barred by the mere passage of time after the responsive pleading is filed, as long as the court grants leave. Therefore, the plaintiff must file a motion with the court seeking leave to amend the complaint, as the defendant has already filed a responsive pleading and has not provided written consent.

The Michigan Court Rules, specifically MCR 2.116, govern motions for summary disposition. This rule outlines various grounds upon which a party can move for summary disposition, including the assertion that a party has been released from all or part of the claim, that the opposing party has no admissible evidence to support a claim or defense, or that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When considering such a motion, the court must view the evidence presented, including affidavits, depositions, and admissions, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. If the moving party demonstrates entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the non-moving party fails to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact, the motion should be granted. In this scenario, the defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the basis that the plaintiff has no admissible evidence to support the claim of breach of contract, if properly supported by evidence (e.g., affidavits showing no contractual breach or plaintiff’s lack of evidence), and if the plaintiff fails to counter with sufficient admissible evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact, would lead to the granting of the motion. The question tests the understanding of the burden of proof and the court’s role in evaluating evidence on a motion for summary disposition under Michigan law.

The Michigan Court Rules, specifically MCR 2.116, govern motions for summary disposition. This rule outlines various grounds upon which a party can move for summary disposition, including that the opposing party has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (MCR 2.116(C)(8)), that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (MCR 2.116(C)(10)), or that an opposing party has been guilty of fraud or other misconduct that would warrant dismissal (MCR 2.116(C)(2)). When a motion for summary disposition is filed under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and other permissible documentary evidence. The standard is whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. If the court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact, it must then determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. If the moving party satisfies its initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact does exist. This is typically done by presenting admissible evidence that contradicts the moving party’s assertions. The question asks about the proper procedure when a motion for summary disposition is filed based on the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, which directly implicates MCR 2.116(C)(10). The non-moving party must present evidence that creates a genuine dispute of material fact. Simply restating the allegations in the pleadings is insufficient if the moving party has presented supporting evidence. The court’s role is to assess whether a trial is necessary.

In Michigan civil procedure, the concept of amending pleadings is governed by Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.118. This rule generally permits parties to amend their pleadings once as a matter of course at any time before the responsive pleading is served. After that, or if no responsive pleading is required, a party may amend its pleading only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party. The rule emphasizes that leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. However, this liberality is not absolute and is subject to considerations such as undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of amendment. In the scenario presented, the defendant’s motion to amend the answer to add an affirmative defense after the discovery period has closed and the case is nearing trial requires the court to balance the plaintiff’s right to a fair trial against the defendant’s right to present a defense. If the proposed affirmative defense is one that could have been discovered through reasonable diligence during the discovery phase and its late introduction would significantly disrupt the plaintiff’s trial preparation or cause undue prejudice, the court may deny the motion. The court would assess whether the defense is truly new and could not have been reasonably anticipated or discovered earlier. The rule’s allowance for amendment “when justice so requires” necessitates a fact-specific inquiry into the prejudice and the reasons for the delay.

In Michigan civil procedure, the determination of whether a plaintiff can amend a complaint after the expiration of the statute of limitations hinges on the concept of “relation back.” Under Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.118(C)(1), an amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading. This rule is crucial for preventing plaintiffs from being unfairly barred from pursuing claims due to technical pleading errors, provided the defendant is not prejudiced. The key is that the amended claim must arise from the same factual nucleus as the original claim. If the amended complaint introduces entirely new and distinct causes of action that do not stem from the original transaction or occurrence, it will not relate back and will be subject to the statute of limitations in effect at the time of amendment. Therefore, the focus is on the factual basis of the claim, not merely the legal theory. A change in the legal theory supporting the same underlying factual grievance is generally permissible.

The scenario involves a dispute over a boundary line between properties owned by two individuals in Michigan. The plaintiff, seeking to quiet title and establish the correct boundary, filed a complaint in the appropriate circuit court. The defendant, a resident of Indiana, was served with process outside of Michigan. The core issue is whether the Michigan court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant for this specific type of action. Michigan courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant for claims arising out of the defendant’s conduct within Michigan, or for claims related to property located within Michigan. In this case, the dispute directly concerns real property situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Michigan circuit court. The nature of a quiet title action is in rem or quasi in rem, as it directly affects the status of property located within the state. Therefore, even though the defendant is not a Michigan resident and was served out of state, the Michigan court’s jurisdiction is established by the situs of the property that is the subject of the litigation. This is consistent with Michigan Court Rule 2.105, which permits service outside the state when authorized by law, and with general principles of long-arm jurisdiction when applied to property disputes within the state’s borders. The jurisdiction is founded on the court’s power over the res (the property), not solely on the defendant’s personal presence or contacts.

The core issue here revolves around the scope of discovery permitted under Michigan Court Rules (MCR) regarding expert witness reports. Specifically, MCR 2.302(A)(1) generally allows discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. MCR 2.302(B)(4)(a)(i) permits discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts who have been retained or specially employed by the party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial, and who are not expected to be called as witnesses at trial, only upon a showing of good cause. However, MCR 2.302(B)(4)(a)(ii) explicitly states that a party may obtain discovery of the identity of persons with knowledge of relevant facts, and the identity of persons who may be used at trial to support the allegations or defenses, and the substance of the expected testimony. Furthermore, MCR 2.302(B)(4)(c) allows discovery of reports of the expert, provided they contain opinions and the basis therefor. In this scenario, the expert witness, Dr. Anya Sharma, was retained by the defendant to analyze the structural integrity of the bridge. While her initial report was not intended for disclosure to the opposing party, the plaintiff’s discovery request seeks all reports, notes, and data compiled by Dr. Sharma in her expert capacity related to the bridge’s structural integrity. Michigan law, through MCR 2.302(B)(4)(c), generally permits discovery of expert reports that contain opinions and their basis, even if the expert is not expected to be called as a witness, provided good cause is shown for non-testifying experts. However, the rule also distinguishes between the reports of testifying experts and non-testifying experts. For experts expected to be called as witnesses, their reports are generally discoverable. For experts not expected to be called, discovery is more limited and requires a showing of good cause. In this case, the plaintiff is seeking the reports, notes, and data. The rules permit discovery of the report itself, which typically includes the expert’s findings and opinions. The request for “notes and data” compiled by the expert could potentially fall under work product protection if it represents the attorney’s mental impressions or trial strategy, but factual data gathered by the expert in their professional capacity, which forms the basis of their opinion, is generally discoverable. The question hinges on whether the “notes and data” are merely factual compilations or if they reveal the attorney’s thought processes. Without further information on the nature of these notes and data, and assuming they are factual underpinnings of the expert’s opinion, they would be discoverable to the extent they are not privileged and relevant. The Michigan Court Rules aim to promote full disclosure of relevant information to facilitate a fair trial. Therefore, the plaintiff can likely obtain the reports and the factual data supporting Dr. Sharma’s opinions, subject to any specific privilege claims. The critical distinction is between discoverable factual basis and protected attorney work product. The Michigan Supreme Court has emphasized a broad discovery policy. Given the broad discovery provisions for expert witnesses who are expected to testify, and the ability to discover reports and underlying data that form the basis of opinions, the plaintiff has a strong argument for obtaining the discoverable portions of Dr. Sharma’s work. The question focuses on what is generally discoverable concerning an expert’s work product, not on a specific exception or privilege that would bar all discovery.

Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.116 governs motions for summary disposition. Specifically, MCR 2.116(C)(8) allows for summary disposition if the opposing party has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This standard requires the court to consider the pleadings alone and to grant the motion if the nonmoving party’s claim is so clearly deficient that it is apparent that no set of facts can be proven to support it. The court must accept all factual allegations in the pleadings as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. If the pleadings, affidavits, and other permissible evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, then summary disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(10). However, when a motion for summary disposition is filed under MCR 2.116(C)(8), the court is generally limited to the pleadings. If the motion is supported by affidavits or other evidence, it is typically treated as a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10). In this scenario, the defendant’s motion, while referencing the (C)(8) standard, is supported by an affidavit from the defendant’s investigator detailing their findings. This introduction of evidence beyond the pleadings transforms the motion into one for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Therefore, the court must consider this evidence and determine if a genuine issue of material fact exists.

The scenario presented involves a plaintiff filing a complaint in Michigan state court. The defendant, a resident of Ohio, was served with process while temporarily visiting Michigan for a business conference. The core issue is whether the Michigan court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.105 governs the methods of service of process. For out-of-state defendants, MCR 2.105(J) specifies conditions under which service outside Michigan confers jurisdiction. Specifically, MCR 2.105(J)(2) allows for service outside Michigan if the action arises out of acts done or omissions caused in Michigan by the defendant, or by the defendant’s agent, and the defendant has “the minimum contacts with this state that are consistent with the constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States.” The defendant’s presence in Michigan for a business conference, even if temporary, can establish sufficient minimum contacts for the purpose of personal jurisdiction, particularly if the lawsuit arises from activities or events that occurred during that visit or are related to that presence. This is based on the concept of “transacting business” within the state, which is a common basis for long-arm jurisdiction under constitutional due process principles. The defendant’s physical presence within the forum state, even for a limited purpose, can be sufficient to establish jurisdiction over claims related to that presence. The question hinges on whether the defendant’s act of attending a business conference in Michigan, and potentially engaging in business activities there, creates a sufficient connection to the state to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction. The fact that the defendant is an Ohio resident and was served while in Michigan for a business conference is key. If the cause of action is related to the defendant’s activities in Michigan during that conference, then personal jurisdiction is likely proper.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the application of Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 2.112(G)(1), which governs the use of affidavits to support motions for summary disposition. This rule specifically states that “An affidavit shall be made on personal knowledge and shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence.” Furthermore, MCR 2.116(G)(2) dictates that “An affidavit may be made by any person having actual knowledge of the facts stated therein.” In the presented case, the affidavit submitted by the defendant’s counsel, Mr. Sterling, purports to establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding the plaintiff’s knowledge of the alleged defect. However, Mr. Sterling’s affidavit is based on his review of discovery materials and conversations with his client, not on his direct, personal observation or knowledge of the events that transpired between the plaintiff and the defendant’s agent. Therefore, the affidavit lacks the requisite personal knowledge as mandated by the rule. The plaintiff’s motion to strike the affidavit is grounded in this deficiency. The court, in evaluating the motion, must determine if the affidavit meets the standards set forth in MCR 2.112(G)(1). Since the affidavit relies on hearsay and information obtained through the attorney-client relationship rather than direct personal knowledge of the factual dispute, it is insufficient to support the motion for summary disposition. Consequently, the motion to strike the affidavit should be granted.

The scenario involves a dispute over a boundary line between properties in Michigan. The plaintiff, Ms. Anya Sharma, filed a quiet title action against Mr. Ben Carter. The core of the dispute centers on the interpretation and application of a metes and bounds description in the original deed. Michigan law, specifically MCR 2.111 regarding pleadings, requires that a complaint state facts sufficient to establish a claim for relief. In a quiet title action, this typically involves demonstrating a claim to title or an interest in the property and identifying the adverse claims. The defendant, Mr. Carter, responded with a general denial and an affirmative defense asserting adverse possession. However, Michigan Court Rules, such as MCR 2.116 governing motions for summary disposition, allow for dismissal if a party fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact. In this case, Mr. Carter’s assertion of adverse possession requires proving several elements, including actual, visible, notorious, exclusive, continuous, and hostile possession for the statutory period (15 years in Michigan, MCL 600.2932). The plaintiff’s argument hinges on the fact that Mr. Carter’s use of the disputed strip of land was permissive, stemming from a temporary agreement with the previous owner, which negates the “hostile” element required for adverse possession. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s reliance on the clear metes and bounds description in her deed, which establishes her record title, creates a strong presumption in her favor. The court, when evaluating a motion for summary disposition on the quiet title claim, would consider whether the defendant has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding his adverse possession claim. Without such evidence, particularly concerning the hostile nature of his possession, the plaintiff’s claim to title based on her deed would likely prevail. Therefore, the defendant’s failure to establish a prima facie case for adverse possession, coupled with the plaintiff’s clear record title and the permissive nature of the defendant’s use, leads to the conclusion that the plaintiff would likely succeed on her quiet title action.

The Michigan Court Rules, specifically MCR 2.111(B)(1), govern the contents of a complaint. A complaint must contain a statement of the facts, a statement of the claim upon which relief is granted, and a demand for the relief the plaintiff seeks. The factual allegations must be stated in separate and numbered paragraphs. The rule emphasizes providing sufficient detail to inform the opposing party of the nature of the claim and the basis for the relief sought. While a complaint can request alternative forms of relief, the core requirement is a clear articulation of the factual basis for the cause of action and the legal theory under which relief is sought. The inclusion of a jury demand, if applicable, is also a procedural element often found in a complaint, typically in a separate section or as part of the concluding prayer for relief, but it is not a substitute for the fundamental factual and legal averments. The rule does not mandate the inclusion of supporting exhibits directly within the complaint itself, though they may be attached as provided by other rules.

The Michigan Court Rules, specifically MCR 2.116(G)(2), govern the procedure for responding to a motion for summary disposition. This rule mandates that a party opposing a motion for summary disposition must file a response within 28 days after service of the motion. If the motion is supported by affidavits, the opposing party may serve opposing affidavits within the same 28-day period. However, MCR 2.116(G)(2) also provides an exception: if the motion is filed under MCR 2.116(C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact), the opposing party has 28 days to file their response, which can include affidavits. The rule does not grant an automatic extension for filing the response or supporting affidavits in this specific scenario. Therefore, without a court order extending the time, the response and any supporting affidavits must be filed within the initial 28-day period. The scenario describes a motion for summary disposition filed under MCR 2.116(C)(10), and the opposing party attempts to file affidavits on the 30th day. This filing is untimely according to the standard timeline provided by the Michigan Court Rules.

The Michigan Court Rules, specifically MCR 2.116, govern motions for summary disposition. A motion for summary disposition based on the ground that a claim or defense is barred by the statute of limitations, MCR 2.116(C)(7), requires the court to consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence. The burden is initially on the movant to establish that the statute of limitations bars the claim. If the movant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate that an exception to the statute of limitations applies or that the statute has not yet expired. In this scenario, the defendant filed a motion for summary disposition asserting the statute of limitations. The plaintiff’s response, which included an affidavit from a medical expert detailing the delayed discovery of the injury due to the nature of the medical malpractice, would be crucial evidence. The court must view this evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the plaintiff. If the plaintiff’s affidavit raises a genuine issue of material fact regarding the applicability of the discovery rule, then summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) would be inappropriate. The court would not simply dismiss the case based on the initial assertion of the statute of limitations if the plaintiff has presented a viable argument for its tolling or inapplicability under the discovery rule, supported by evidence.