Whether summary disposition was prematurely granted; Motion for leave to file an amended complaint; MCR 2.116(I)(5); Motion to strike an amended complaint under MCR 2.115(B)

Holding that the trial court did not err by 1) granting summary disposition for defendants, 2) declining to allow plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint under MCR 2.116(I)(5), or 3) granting defendants’ motion to strike the amended complaint, the court affirmed. Plaintiff first argued “that the trial court erred when it granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition because discovery was not yet complete.” The court concluded that “even if additional discovery was allowed by the trial court, his claims against defendants still would fail. In other words, the fact that plaintiff was seeking to identify possible individual defendants does not change the fact that each of the named defendants were entitled to summary disposition when the trial court entered its opinion and order. Thus, the named defendants were entitled to dismissal of the case at that time.” Moreover, the court was “unaware of any authority to suggest that a case should remain open under these circumstances, i.e., where each of the named defendants are entitled to summary disposition on the merits.” Plaintiff next argued “that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to amend his complaint.” Plaintiff relatedly argued “that the trial court erred when it struck his amended complaint from the record.” The trial court granted defendants summary disposition “on the basis of governmental immunity, a matter contemplated by MCR 2.116(C)(7) (immunity granted by law). MCR 2.116(I)(5) only allows for an opportunity to file an amended pleading if the opposing party is granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), (C)(9), or (C)(10).” Also, plaintiff challenged “the trial court’s decision to grant defendants’ motion to strike his amended complaint under MCR 2.115(B).” The court concluded that because “MCR 2.118(A)(1) does not apply, plaintiff had to file his amended complaint under MCR 2.118(A)(2). However, plaintiff filed his amended complaint without leave of the trial court on [4/29/24]. The trial court determined that plaintiff did not have leave to amend his complaint, and there was no record indicating that defendants provided consent to file an amended complaint. A motion to strike is properly granted if ‘a pleading [is] not drawn in conformity with [the court] rules.’” Plaintiff was “not entitled to an amendment under MCR 2.118(A)(1) and did not adhere to the requirements of MCR 2.118(A)(2).”