Superintending control jurisdiction; MCR 3.302(D); In re Hague; Existence of an adequate legal remedy; Clear legal duty versus discretionary judicial acts; MCR 4.201; Shepherd Montessori Ctr Milan v Ann Arbor Charter Twp; In re Gosnell; Adequate alternative remedy through judicial discipline

The court held that although the circuit court erred in treating the availability of other remedies as a jurisdictional bar, petitioners were not entitled to an order of superintending control because they failed to show either a violation of a clear legal duty or the absence of an adequate alternative remedy. Petitioners, a landlord entity and its management company, sought superintending control over respondent-district court judge based on alleged practices in summary eviction proceedings, including failure to enter defaults, refusal to enforce conditional dismissals, delays in signing eviction orders, adjournments that favored tenants, surprise questioning, and poor docket control, which they characterized as intentional bias against landlords. The circuit court granted respondent’s motion for summary disposition, reasoning that petitioners had an adequate legal remedy. On appeal, the court first clarified that MCR 3.302(D) is procedural rather than jurisdictional, explaining that “the availability of an appeal does not deprive a court of the subject-matter jurisdiction to issue an order of superintending control; rather, the subrule is ‘a procedural requirement to be met before relief can be granted[,]’” so the circuit court cited the wrong subrule. But the court determined that it reached the correct result. The court concluded that many of petitioners’ complaints involved discretionary judicial functions such as scheduling, adjournments, and questioning of parties, and that they had not shown violation of a ministerial duty. It was “not convinced that respondent owed petitioners a clear legal duty to, for example, refrain from asking them certain questions when they appear before him, or to schedule or refrain from scheduling hearings in a manner that best suits them.” For allegations that touched on broader patterns or possible bias, the court held that petitioners had an adequate remedy through the Judicial Tenure Commission’s investigatory and disciplinary powers. “Petitioners’ complaints can be resolved without resorting to the extraordinary relief of an order of superintending control,” and therefore summary disposition was properly granted even though the circuit court relied on an incorrect jurisdictional ground. Affirmed.