Dismissal for failure to appear for trial; Gueye v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co; Claim that plaintiff did not have enough time to respond to defendant’s proposed jury instructions; MCR 2.512(A)(1); Failure to properly request an adjournment; MCR 2.503(B)(1)

The court held that the trial court improperly dismissed this case “without first considering alternative sanctions on the record.” Thus, it vacated the order dismissing this landlord-tenant case without prejudice and remanded. Plaintiff asserted the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing her case based on her “failure to appear for trial because [it] should have rescheduled the trial date to give [her] the opportunity to respond to defendant’s proposed jury instructions.” While the court disagreed with her argument, it agreed the case was improperly dismissed. Noting the nonexhaustive list of factors a trial court should consider before dismissing a case, the court found there was no indication in the record here “that the trial court took the requisite step of ‘carefully evaluat[ing] all available options on the record’ before concluding that dismissal was the proper sanction.” The order dismissing the case only stated “that the trial court did so because of ‘plaintiff’s failure to appear for trial.’ On the record at the trial, the trial court noted that plaintiff disagreed with defense counsel’s proposed jury instructions; stated that plaintiff ‘refuse[d]’ to appear for trial to discuss the jury instructions; and confirmed that the trial court, defense counsel, and potential jurors were all present and ready to proceed.” Although it “arguably weighed dismissal with prejudice against dismissal without prejudice when it stated that it would ‘dismiss . . . without prejudice . . . just in case something extreme has happened to [plaintiff],’ we do not believe that this constitutes a careful evaluation of the trial court’s available options.” The court noted that it found “plaintiff’s claim that the trial court should have rescheduled the trial date, rather than dismissing the case, because she did not have enough time to respond to defendant’s proposed jury instructions” meritless. Her assertion “that she should have been given time to respond” before the trial date was illogical given “that the parties were not required to submit the proposed jury instructions until the day of trial.” It also found no merit in her claim that she did not have enough time to submit her proposed instructions. In addition, she failed to “properly request an adjournment of the trial date.”