Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

KAMLESH CHOPRA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v ASHLEY GORMAN and ASHLEY GORMAN & ASSOCIATES, PLC, Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED May 25, 2010

No. 289275 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2008-088796-NM

Before: METER, P.J., and MURRAY and BECKERING, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this legal malpractice action, plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court's grant of summary disposition to defendant. We affirm. Plaintiff filed a complaint on January 23, 2008, in which she alleged that she had claims against All-Tech Investment Group, Inc., and another defendant and that these claims were arbitrated and "decided against her interest." She hired defendant Ashley Gorman1 to appeal the award under MCR 3.602(J). MCR 3.602(J)(1) states that "[a] complaint to vacate an arbitration award must be filed no later than 21 days after the date of the arbitration award." Plaintiff stated that the award was mailed to her on June 1, 2004, and that she received it approximately one week later. She stated that approximately 14 days after receiving it, she took it to defendant and requested that he file an appeal. Plaintiff alleged: 22. GORMAN, realizing that the initial filing could have been considered by the court to be past the 21 day appeal period, sought to avoid the potential tardiness by indicating that he was following the Complaint service rules contained in Section 12 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which states a court may vacate an arbitration award so long as its time line were [sic] followed, to wit: "[n]otice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award must be served upon an adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is filed or delivered." [Emphasis removed.]

1

For ease of reference, we will refer to the singular "defendant" in this opinion.

-1-

23. The award was filed on the 1st of June, 2004 and, arguably, delivered in mid-June of 2004, so three months from that date would be the 1st of September, 2004 to, potentially, some time in mid-September, 2004. 24. GORMAN did not serve the Summon[s] and Complaint on the attorney for All-Tech until the 27th of September, 2004

Download KAMLESH CHOPRA V ASHLEY GORMAN.pdf

Michigan Law