Background
These seven 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, Birmingham, and the Village of Beverly Hills. The actions named Oakland County, the George W. Kuhn Drainage District, the Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner, and the applicable municipality.
In each action, the plaintiffs filed an original complaint and obtained a summons. Before serving either document—and shortly before the summons expired—they filed a first amended complaint without seeking leave or obtaining the defendants’ consent. They then timely served the defendants with the original summons and the amended complaint. The trial courts reached differing results: Southfield struck the amended complaint and dismissed its case; Beverly Hills struck the amended complaint but declined to dismiss; and Royal Oak and Birmingham declined 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; it does not require the opposing party to serve a responsive pleading before the right to amend arises. The plaintiffs therefore properly filed their amended complaints.
The court also held that the plaintiffs properly served the operative amended complaints with the original summonses before those summonses expired. Nothing in MCR 2.105 categorically prohibits that method of service. Even if it had been technically improper, dismissal would have been barred by MCR 2.105(K)(3) because each defendant timely received both a summons and a complaint providing notice of the action; there was no complete failure of service.
Accordingly, 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 separate order striking their amended complaint.
Key Takeaways
- Under MCR 2.118(A)(1), a party may amend a pleading once as of right before an adverse party serves a responsive pleading, as well as during the following 14 days.
- A properly filed amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and may be served with the original, unexpired summons.
- A service defect does not permit 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 interpretive question about when Michigan litigants may amend pleadings as a matter of right. It rejects the view that the amendment right remains unavailable until an opposing party serves a responsive pleading.
The ruling also distinguishes technical defects in service from a complete failure of service. When a defendant timely receives a summons and an operative complaint sufficient to provide notice and an opportunity to respond, Michigan’s court rules do not permit dismissal merely because the manner or content of service is alleged to be defective.