Whether another case was still pending; MCR 2.116(C)(6); Valeo Switches & Detection Sys., Inc. v. Emcom, Inc.; Fast Air, Inc. v. Knight; Whether the cases involved the same claim; JD Candler Roofing Co., Inc. v. Dickson; Sanctions; Frivolous claim; MCL 600.2591(3)(a); MCR 1.109(E)(5)-(6); BJ’s & Sons Constr. Co., Inc. v. Van Sickle; Kitchen v. Kitchen; The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 USC § 1692 et seq.); Michigan’s Regulation of Collection Practices Act (MRCPA) (MCL 445.251 et seq.)

The court held that plaintiff-Heasley’s argument that another case (the Allegan case) was no longer pending completely lacked merit. Also, the trial court did not clearly err by finding his claim in this case (the Ottawa case) was frivolous under MCR 600.2951 and MCR 1.109(E). Defendant-Holland (the Hospital), through its lawyers, defendant-Law Office of Barbara Tsaturova, PLLC, sued Heasley in the Allegan case because he had not paid for goods and services he received from the Hospital. He filed counterclaims against the Hospital under the FDCPA and MRCPA. Two days after the Allegan court’s oral order denying his motion to strike, he filed a complaint against the Hospital, the Tsaturova Law Office, and Barbara Tsaturova in the Ottawa case. The trial court in that case granted defendants summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(6) and awarded them attorney fees and costs. Heasley contended that the Allegan case was no longer “pending” when the trial court granted summary disposition. The court held that “even after the October ruling, the Allegan case remained pending, and it was not resolved until” 3/26/19, when “the Allegan court entered a final consent judgment that dismissed with prejudice Heasley’s counterclaims against defendants, noting that the claims had been withdrawn with the consent of all the parties.” The judgment also indicated “that all pending motions were withdrawn by consent and ordered Heasley to pay the Hospital . . . .” Given the March order, it was “apparent that the Hospital’s claims in the Allegan case remained pending after the [10/29/18] hearing, as did at least some of Heasley’s counterclaims against both the Hospital and the Tsaturova Law Office.” The court also rejected his argument that both cases did not involve “the same claim.” It noted that the fact there were differences between the claims did “not conclusively establish that” they were “not the ‘same’ under MCR 2.116(C)(6).” The claims in the Ottawa case could “only fairly be described as being based on the same or substantially the same cause of action as the Allegan case.” The court found that the claims here flowed “directly and naturally from the Hospital’s attempt to collect money due and owing in the Allegan case.” Heasley also contended that the claims were not the same because a judgment in one case would not resolve the other case. But “nothing in the court rule states that the ‘ultimate’ inquiry will be whether resolution of one case will conclusively resolve the second case.” In any event, summary disposition was warranted because “the claims in the Ottawa case could have been raised in the Allegan case.” Affirmed.