Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY and KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN TRIBAL COUNCIL, Plaintiffs, and WAYNE SWARTZ, WILLIAM EMERY, ANN DURANT, TERRIE DENOMIE, AMY SAINT ARNOLD, ROSEMARY HAATAJA, MICHAEL LAFERNIER, ISADORE MISEGAN, RICHARD SHALIFOE, and PAULINE KNAPP-SPRUCE, Appellants, v ALAN W. CLARKE, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED January 11, 2000

No. 214015 Baraga Circuit Court LC No. 97-004338-CZ

Before: Griffin, P.J., and Sawyer and Smolenski, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellants Wayne Swartz, William Emery, Anne Durant, Terri Denomie, Amy Saint Arnold, Rosemary Haataja, Michael Lafernier, Isadore Misegan, Richard Shalifoe and Pauline Knapp-Spruce appeal as of right from an order granting defendant summary disposition in this defamation case. We affirm. On May 29, 1997, the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Tribal Council (Tribal Council) filed suit against defendant, an attorney representing a dissident faction of KBIC known as "Fight for Justice," for allegedly defaming them when defendant claimed that he had evidence of "widespread corruption" and "links to organized" crime by Tribal Council members and KBIC employees. This defamation purportedly occurred in statements made to a radio station on May 29, 1996.

-1

Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10).1 In response and without leave of the trial court, appellants, ten individuals who were members of the Tribal Council in May 1996, filed on November 10, 1997, an "amended complaint" alleging defamation. Notably, the amended complaint neither listed the original plaintiffs, KBIC or the Tribal Council, as parties to the matter, nor did it list two other council members, KBIC Chairman Fred Dakota and Gary Loonsfoot, Sr. Defendant moved to strike the amended complaint pursuant to MCR 2.115(B). In his motion, defendant maintained that the amended complaint completely removed the original plaintiffs from the suit, substituted ten new individuals, and changed the factual allegations. Pertinent to this appeal, defendant argued that the amended complaint was barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations, MCL 600.5805(7); MSA 27A.5805(7), because the amendment adding new parties to the suit did not relate back to the filing of the original complaint. Following a hearing on defendant's motions to strike the amended complaint and summary disposition, the trial court granted both motions, stating in pertinent part: [W]e are effectively changing the nature of the parties by the amended complaint in this case. Therefore, the rule in Hurt v Michael's Food [Center, Inc, 220 Mich App 169; 559 NW2d 660 (1996)] would suggest that the amended complaint does not relate back to the date of filing, and therefore, under the statute of limitations which has been cited in the briefs as found in the RJA 600.5805(7) as one year would have run prior to the filing of the amended complaint, and for that reason, allowing the amended complaint would be futile. It would be subject to an immediate, and is now being subject to a claim of

Download KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMM V ALAN W CLARKE.pdf

Michigan Law