Action challenging a school-mask mandate; Dismissal for lack of progress; MCR 2.502(A)(1); Motion for reinstatement; Wickings v Artic Enters, Inc

The court held that the trial court erred both in dismissing plaintiff’s case for lack of progress and in denying reinstatement. Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief challenging defendant’s authority to enter a public-health order mandating that schools under its jurisdiction require all students in Kindergarten through 12th grade to wear face masks in school. At the same time, plaintiff filed a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order to prohibit schools from enforcing the local health department mask mandate. The trial court eventually entered an order of dismissal for lack of progress. It later denied plaintiff’s motion for relief from the dismissal. On appeal, the court found the trial court erred by dismissing this case for lack of progress. First, “91 days did not elapse without plaintiff taking some action. Second, the notice of proposed dismissal required plaintiff to take action within 28 days of the notice. Plaintiff took action on day 26 by filing an amended complaint. In its decision, the trial court noted that plaintiff did not notice or serve the amended complaint at the time it was filed. But nothing in the notice of proposed dismissal required these additional steps.” Simply put, “plaintiff was required to take action by the deadline and plaintiff acted.” The court also found the trial court erred by denying reinstatement, noting it “erred by focusing on (1) the underlying merits of the case and (2) plaintiff’s failure to serve the amended complaint by the deadline posed in the notice of proposed dismissal when the trial court did not identify that requirement in previous orders.” Reversed and remanded.