Background
This was the second appeal in a negligence dispute arising from defendant Utica Van Dyke Service LLC’s removal of vehicles from plaintiff Tom Djonovic’s property. Defendant assists the Shelby Township Police Department with vehicle towing services and removed several improperly stored, unregistered, and inoperable vehicles from plaintiff’s property pursuant to a court order. Plaintiff sued, alleging that defendant’s use of overweight towing equipment negligently or grossly negligently damaged his driveway and landscaping.
On first appeal, the trial court had granted defendant summary disposition based on governmental immunity under Michigan’s Governmental Tort Liability Act. Plaintiff successfully appealed that decision. After the appeal, plaintiff’s counsel withdrew and plaintiff proceeded in propria persona. Despite court orders, plaintiff refused to appear for his deposition and did not comply with discovery requests. Trial was scheduled for March 25, 2025, with a pretrial conference on March 18, 2025. Notice of both dates was e-served to plaintiff.
Plaintiff failed to appear at the pretrial conference on March 18. When he did not appear for trial on March 25, he told the clerk that he had filed an appeal and therefore was not appearing. The trial court offered plaintiff the option of appearing by Zoom, which he declined. Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to appear, and the trial court granted the motion, citing plaintiff’s willful absence and history of noncompliance with court orders.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. The court applied the well-established standard from Vicencio v. Ramirez for evaluating whether dismissal for failure to appear is proper. Trial courts possess inherent authority to sanction litigants, including dismissal, and appellate courts may overturn such sanctions only for clear abuse of discretion. The court identified seven factors to consider: (1) whether the violation was willful or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with prior court orders; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other aspects of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice.
Applying these factors, the appellate court found that plaintiff’s absence was willful and deliberate. Plaintiff had been advised repeatedly that trial was in-person, received an email on March 6 confirming the pretrial hearing, and refused accommodation via Zoom. The court emphasized that plaintiff’s noncompliance extended beyond trial to discovery, where he had refused to appear for deposition and failed to respond to interrogatories and production requests despite multiple court orders. This pattern demonstrated a history of deliberate delay and noncompliance. The trial court’s attempt to accommodate plaintiff by offering remote participation further supported dismissal as appropriate, since plaintiff had opportunity to cure the defect but refused.
The court concluded that a lesser sanction would not serve the interests of justice, particularly because prior court orders had failed to secure compliance and plaintiff had demonstrated clear intent not to participate in trial proceedings. Dismissal was a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts have broad discretion to dismiss cases when parties willfully fail to appear at trial, and appellate courts will only overturn such dismissals for clear abuse of discretion.
- Pro se litigants must comply with all court orders and rules of procedure; representing oneself does not excuse noncompliance or failure to appear.
- A litigant’s history of noncompliance with prior court orders—including failure to participate in discovery—is a significant factor supporting dismissal.
- When a trial court offers accommodations to enable a party to comply (such as remote appearance), a party’s refusal to use that accommodation strengthens the case for dismissal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that filing a notice of appeal does not excuse a party from appearing at scheduled trial proceedings. The court made clear that claiming an interlocutory appeal was pending did not justify plaintiff’s absence or noncompliance with discovery obligations. For pro se litigants, the case demonstrates that courts expect adherence to procedural rules and court orders despite self-representation. The decision is significant in establishing that trial courts need not impose lesser sanctions when a party has repeatedly disregarded orders and refused reasonable accommodations.
The holding also reflects that trial court discretion to sanction litigants is broad and will be upheld absent clear abuse, making it difficult for appellants to overturn dismissals based on failure to appear. Plaintiffs and defendants alike should note that willful noncompliance with discovery and appearance requirements can result in dismissal with prejudice, ending the case entirely regardless of the merits of the underlying claim.