Background
Linda Comer alleged that she injured her back, neck, and shoulder after slipping on an unknown substance at an Aldi store in Lincoln Park, Michigan. She sued for premises liability and negligence in 2023. During discovery, Comer filed disclosures late, did not answer written discovery, and did not complete her deposition despite a court order compelling her to do so.
Comer died in January 2025. Her counsel subsequently arrived late to one conference, missed another, and failed to meet deadlines relating to substitution of Comer’s estate and submission of a stipulated dismissal. The trial court ultimately dismissed the action with prejudice on its own initiative, citing the discovery failures, missed appearances, substitution-related noncompliance, and lack of prosecution. It later denied reconsideration.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court had authority to dismiss the case sua sponte. Michigan court rules expressly permit dismissal on the court’s own initiative when a party fails to comply with court rules or court orders, and trial courts also possess inherent authority to sanction misconduct and manage their dockets.
But the appellate court held that the record did not show the required evaluation of lesser sanctions before dismissal with prejudice. Although the extensive noncompliance warranted substantial sanctions and might ultimately justify dismissal, the trial court catalogued the violations without explaining why a lesser sanction would be inadequate. The trial court also mistakenly treated the substitution motion as untimely under a 91-day period running from Comer’s death; that period begins upon filing and service of a statement of death, and even treating the stay order as such a statement, the motion was filed 84 days later.
The Court of Appeals therefore vacated the dismissal and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the appropriate sanction on the record. It expressed no opinion about which sanction should be imposed and emphasized that the trial court may consider the entire procedural history, prejudice to Aldi, and the conduct of Comer and her counsel.
Key Takeaways
- A Michigan trial court may dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to comply with court rules, discovery obligations, or court orders.
- Before dismissing with prejudice, the court must evaluate available alternatives on the record and explain why the selected sanction is just and proper.
- Repeated warnings, scheduling accommodations, and compliance directives do not necessarily establish that the court considered and rejected lesser sanctions.
- The 91-day substitution period under MCR 2.202(A)(1)(b) begins with filing and service of a statement of death, not automatically on the date of death.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that dismissal with prejudice remains a drastic sanction even when a party’s noncompliance is prolonged and serious. A trial court need not impose progressively harsher sanctions first, but its record must demonstrate that it considered alternatives and determined why dismissal is appropriate.
The ruling also clarifies the triggering event for Michigan’s 91-day substitution period after a party dies, while recognizing that substitution remains discretionary and that separate failures to provide prompt notice or comply with court-imposed deadlines may still support sanctions.