Negligence; Intentional & negligent infliction of emotional distress (IIED & NIED); Statute of limitations; Tolling; MCL 600.5856; Effect of a federal lawsuit alleging a claim under 42 USC § 1983

The court held that because plaintiff’s complaint alleging IIED, NIED, “and negligence was filed outside the limitations period of MCL 600.5805(2), the trial court correctly concluded that [his] claims were barred by the statute of limitations.” He argued “that the trial court erred by holding that the filing of the federal lawsuit did not toll the statute of limitations on the basis that defendant, sued in his personal capacity in the state claim, is not the same party as defendant, sued in his official capacity in the federal action.” The court concluded “that regardless of the trial court’s reasoning regarding that issue, [it] correctly determined that defendant was entitled to summary disposition. Plaintiff’s state-law claims accrued [10/15/17], the date that defendant called plaintiff’s mother to protest plaintiff’s derogatory Facebook posts, and a three-year period of limitations applied, extended by our Supreme Court’s administrative orders by 101 days.” Plaintiff argued “that his state-law claims were timely because the statute of limitations was tolled on [12/29/20], the date he filed his federal claim, and remained tolled by the federal action at the time he filed his complaint in state court on [10/14/22].” But his federal lawsuit alleged a claim under § “1983 for retaliation against plaintiff for exercising his First Amendment rights, and did not allege the state-law tort claims alleged in this action.” The court noted that “MCL 600.5856 tolls a statute of limitations when a complaint is filed, or at the time jurisdiction is otherwise acquired by the court over the defendant.” Plaintiff argued “that both of these subsections” applied to his filing of the federal suit. But while “the filing of a federal lawsuit may toll the statute of limitations regarding state-law claims that are brought supplemental to the federal claims,” there was no support for an argument that his “federal lawsuit that did not include his state-law claims and sought different relief tolled the statute of limitations regarding his state-law claims.” The court noted that his “complaint did not include his claims under state law, and the federal court thereafter declined jurisdiction over the state claims when it denied plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to add the claims.” Under the “circumstances, MCL 600.5856 does not toll the statute of limitations regarding claims that were never pending before the federal district court.” Affirmed.