|
No. 134670
| Latif Z. Oram a/k/a Randy Z. Oram, |
|
Reginald M. Turner, Jr. |
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/ |
|
|
Counter-Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| O.B. Properties Limited Partnership, |
|
|
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Counter- |
|
|
Plaintiff/Third-Party Defendant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| O.B. Properties and JAM Sound Specialist, Inc., |
|
|
Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants/Counter- |
|
|
Plaintiffs/Third-Party Plaintiffs, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Oakland - Simon, C.) |
|
|
| John Oram and Gary Oram, |
|
Gordon I. Berris |
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs/ |
|
Satch U. Ejike |
Counter-Defendants-Appellees, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
International OUtdoor, Inc., Vision Properties, Inc., |
|
|
| Discount Paging Company, Inc., and Future Vision |
|
|
| Properties, LLC, |
|
|
Third-Party Defendants, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Armand Velardo, S. Haddad, and Bradley Lambert, |
|
|
Intervening Plaintiffs, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Harry Cendrowski, |
|
Karen H. Safran |
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-Appellant Randy Z. Oram's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee John Oram's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee Gary Oram's Brief in Opposition of Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee Gary Oram's Supplemental Brief>>
Background
Latif “Randy” Oram and his brothers, John and Gary Oram, together owned and operated several businesses. John and Gary sued Randy over a business dispute; Randy counterclaimed. John and Gary’s claims and Randy’s counterclaim were dismissed, and Randy appealed. While the appeal was pending, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby Randy was to be paid $1,650,000 as a “make up payment,” using funds from certain family-owned businesses. Randy later sued John and Gary, contending that they had breached the settlement agreement by taking assets out of the family businesses, leaving them unable to pay him. The trial court ruled that John and Gary were not personally liable to pay Randy the make up payment. Trial was adjourned several times and was finally set for November 15, 2005. On the morning of trial, Randy’s counsel, James Shaw, did not appear, but a substitute attorney brought a note from Shaw’s doctor, stating that Shaw was medically incapacitated. The trial court then set trial for November 17, 2005, and ordered that if Randy and Shaw did not appear prepared to proceed with trial, Shaw must produce his doctor to testify to his claimed incapacity. Shaw appeared on November 17, but claimed that he was not fit to proceed. He did not bring his doctor to testify; his doctor later stated that he spoke with the trial judge’s clerk and was told that he would be called by the clerk if he needed to appear. The trial court dismissed Randy’s case with prejudice. John and Gary then moved for case evaluation sanctions, citing MCR 2.403(O)(2); they argued that they prevailed due to a favorable judgment that “entered as a result of a ruling on a motion after rejection of the case evaluation.” The trial court agreed, and the Court of Appeals later affirmed in an unpublished opinion. The trial judge’s decision to dismiss the appeal was within the range of principled outcomes, the Court of Appeals said. “At the time of dismissal, there already existed a substantial history of deliberate delay. . . . Any sanction less than dismissal would not have been useful, merely prolonging the sluggish evolution of this case and allowing the costs of litigation to mount,” the panel stated. The trial court properly awarded case evaluation sanctions, the Court of Appeals concluded, “because an order of dismissal has the same practical effect as a verdict of no cause of action, and should therefore be treated as such.” The plaintiff appeals.
Top of Page
|
