Background
The consolidated appeals arose from four Oakland Circuit Court actions alleging that defects in sewage-disposal systems caused raw sewage and storm water to flood homes in Southfield, Royal Oak, Beverly Hills, and Birmingham. Each action named Oakland County, the George W. Kuhn Drainage District, the Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner, and the relevant municipality or village.
In each action, the plaintiffs filed an original complaint and obtained a summons. Before serving defendants and shortly before the summons expired, they filed a first amended complaint without leave or defendants’ consent. They then timely served the amended complaint with the original summons. The trial courts reached different results: Southfield struck the amended complaint and dismissed the action; Beverly Hills struck the amended complaint but refused to dismiss; and Royal Oak and Birmingham refused both to strike and to dismiss.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that MCR 2.118(A)(1) permits a party to amend a complaint once as a matter of right at any time before, and through 14 days after, an adverse party serves a responsive pleading. The rule’s phrase “within 14 days after” establishes the deadline for amendment as of right; it does not require the opposing party to serve a responsive pleading before the right arises. Because no defendants had served responsive pleadings when the amendments were filed, the plaintiffs properly amended their complaints.
The court also held that serving each properly amended complaint with the original, unexpired summons was permissible. Once filed, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, so the amended complaint was the operative pleading at service. Even assuming some technical defect, MCR 2.105(K)(3) prohibited dismissal because defendants received both a summons and an amended complaint within the service period and therefore had notice of the actions. This was not a complete failure of service.
The court affirmed the Royal Oak, Beverly Hills, and Birmingham orders denying dismissal and affirmed the Royal Oak and Birmingham orders declining to strike the amended complaints. It reversed the Southfield orders striking the amended complaint and dismissing that action, and remanded all matters for further proceedings. The Beverly Hills plaintiffs had not appealed the order striking their amended complaint, so that ruling was not reversed.
Key Takeaways
- Under MCR 2.118(A)(1), a party may amend a complaint once as of right before a responsive pleading is served and for up to 14 days afterward.
- A properly filed amended complaint supersedes the original and may be served with the original summons while that summons remains valid.
- A service error does not justify dismissal under MCR 2.105(K)(3) when timely service informed the defendant of the action; dismissal is reserved for a complete failure of service.
Why It Matters
The published decision resolves an important Michigan procedural question by confirming that a plaintiff’s right to amend once without permission does not depend on the defendant first serving a responsive pleading. It also rejects a rigid service rule that would require delivery of a superseded original complaint instead of the operative amended pleading.
For litigators, the opinion distinguishes technical defects that still provide constitutionally adequate notice from a complete failure of service. That distinction can determine whether a case proceeds or is dismissed after a summons expires.