Background
Residents brought four actions alleging that defects in municipal and county sewage-disposal systems caused raw sewage and storm water to flood their homes. The actions named Oakland County, the George W. Kuhn Drainage District, the Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner, and the relevant locality: Southfield, Royal Oak, Birmingham, or Beverly Hills.
In each action, the plaintiffs filed an original complaint and obtained a summons. One or two days before the summons expired, they filed an amended complaint without seeking leave or obtaining the defendants’ consent. They then served the defendants with the amended complaint and the original summons before the summons expired. The trial courts reached different results: Southfield struck the amended complaint and dismissed its case; 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 an adverse party serves a responsive pleading and through 14 days after such service. The rule’s phrase “within 14 days after” sets 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 during the life of those summonses. Even if that method had been procedurally defective, dismissal would have been barred by MCR 2.105(K)(3) because the defendants timely received both a summons and a complaint informing them of the actions. Any defect would not have constituted a complete failure of service.
Accordingly, the court affirmed the Royal Oak, Beverly Hills, and Birmingham orders denying dismissal; affirmed the Royal Oak and Birmingham orders declining to strike the amended complaints; 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.
Key Takeaways
- Under MCR 2.118(A)(1), a plaintiff may amend a complaint once as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is served and for up to 14 days afterward.
- A properly filed amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and may be served with the original summons while that summons remains valid.
- Under MCR 2.105(K)(3), a service error does not justify dismissal 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 a recurring procedural question under Michigan’s amendment rule: the right to amend does not depend on an opponent first serving a responsive pleading. It also reinforces Michigan’s preference for preserving actions when timely service fulfills its notice function, even if the manner or content of service is challenged.
The ruling allows the sewage-flooding claims to proceed on remand without deciding their merits.