Voluntary dismissal conditions & notice; MCR 2.504(A)(2); McKelvie v City of Mt. Clemens; Attorney withdrawal discretion; MCR 2.117(C)(2); Keywell & Rosenfeld v Bithell

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing plaintiff’s case with prejudice without ensuring that plaintiff knowingly accepted that condition. Plaintiff brought a third-party automobile negligence action that proceeded through discovery and was scheduled for trial when both original counsel and co-counsel moved to withdraw, citing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The trial court denied withdrawal and told plaintiff she must either proceed to trial or dismiss her case. When plaintiff responded that the trial court could dismiss the case, it immediately stated that it was dismissing the matter, and an order prepared by defense counsel was later entered dismissing the case “with prejudice.” On appeal, the court explained that a dismissal at a plaintiff’s request is governed by MCR 2.504(A)(2), which allows dismissal only “on terms and conditions the court deems proper.” Citing McKelvie, the court reiterated that “a party seeking a voluntary dismissal must be given a choice to either proceed to trial or accept a dismissal on the terms and conditions established by the trial court.” The court found that plaintiff was never informed that dismissal would be with prejudice, never advised of the legal consequences of such a dismissal, and never given the opportunity to reject those terms. The court rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s statement constituted consent, explaining that “the issue of whether the dismissal would be with or without prejudice was not even mentioned at the hearing.” Although the court affirmed the denial of counsel’s motions to withdraw given the age of the case and the imminent trial date, it concluded that the dismissal procedure violated MCR 2.504(A)(2) and required reversal and remand.