 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moch v. Nelsen2/22/2000
FOR PUBLICATION
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right the order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(3) for insufficient service of process. We reverse.
Plaintiff Joseph W. Moch is an attorney who resides and practices law in Michigan. Defendant David M. Nelson is an attorney who resides and practices law in Iowa. Plaintiff and defendant worked together on an Iowa couple's product liability lawsuit against Kawasaki, the manufacturer of an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) on which the husband was injured. Defendant Nelson was hired by the couple, and plaintiff Moch and his law firm were subsequently hired to assist in pursuing the couple's claim. Apparently, defendant offered to share equally with plaintiffs any attorney fees generated as a result of a settlement or favorable trial result. Before that lawsuit was settled, plaintiff was asked to discontinue his involvement in the lawsuit. On March 9, 1998, plaintiff instigated the present action against defendant to recover $38,000 that plaintiff alleges he is owed for his work on the lawsuit.
On that same day, defendant was in Lansing to testify against plaintiff before the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board (the board) pursuant to the board's request for defendant's testimony regarding plaintiff's action as legal representatives in the product liability lawsuit. Defendant was served with the complaint in the present action while in the Lansing airport on his return trip to Iowa.
Defendant moved, inter alia, for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(3) on the ground of insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the entire complaint for insufficient service of process on the ground that defendant was present in Michigan only to attend a court proceeding and, therefore, was privileged from service of process. On appeal, plaintiff contends that a board hearing is not a court proceeding and, therefore, the trial court erred by dismissing the lawsuit.
MCL 600.1835; MSA 27A.1835 provides a privilege from service of process in a civil suit under certain circumstances. At issue in this case is § 1835(1), which provides that:
All persons going to, attending, or returning from, any court proceedings in any action in which their presence is needed are privileged from service of process if service could not have been made on them had they not gone to, attended, or returned from the proceedings.
The term "court proceeding" is not defined in the statute.
The goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Frankenmuth Mutual Ins Co v Marlette Homes, Inc, 456 Mich 511, 515; 573 NW2d 611 (1997). If the language of the statute is unambiguous, the Legislature must have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be enforced as written. No further judicial construction is required or permitted. People v Morris, 450 Mich 316, 325; 537 NW2d 842 (1995). It is only where a statute is unclear and susceptible to more than one interpretation that judicial construction is allowed. Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 236; 596 NW2d 119 (1999).
Here, the Legislature specifically chose to use the specific term "court proceeding" when it created § 1835(1). 1961 PA 236. Court proceedings are instigated by the filing of a complaint in court. See, e.g., Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Co v Bronson Plating Co, 445 Mich 558, 576; 519 NW2d 864 (1994)(Griffin, J., dissenting); Lake Carriers' Ass'n v MacMullan, 91 Mich App 357, 360; 282 NW2d 486, rev'd on other grounds 407 Mich 424 (1979). Because we must i
Page 1 2 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|