Allowing counsel to withdraw; Good cause to withdraw; Failure to administer an oath to start a summary disposition motion hearing; Grant of summary disposition; Sanctions; MCR 2.625(A)(2); “Frivolous” action; MCL 600.2591(3)(a)(i)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff-Ottobre’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. Further, plaintiff did not identify any court rule or other authority requiring the trial court to administer an oath at the start of a summary disposition motion hearing. He also failed to show any basis for reversing summary disposition for defendants due to the lack of evidence connecting his “alleged injury to the claimed negligence.” Finally, the court concluded “the trial court did not clearly err by finding” his complaint frivolous and imposing sanctions under MCL 600.2591. Plaintiff sued defendants for trespass, nuisance, and negligence after he fell over a wire while walking. “The location in which Ottobre alleged to have fallen has been the subject of contentious litigation between the parties.” He acted in propria persona on appeal. As to his counsel’s withdrawal, the court noted that the “trial court was provided with evidence of a total breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and Ottobre did not indicate that he objected to counsel’s removal. Further, there were no immediate proceedings for which Ottobre was left to represent himself without the opportunity to retain new counsel.” And he failed to otherwise identify “how he could have been prejudiced by the trial court’s decision to grant the motion to withdraw. From this record, the trial court’s decision was within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” As to the award of sanctions to defendants, it was clear from the record that the parties had “a lengthy history of contentious litigation revolving around the boundary-line dispute, and Ottobre continues to believe that he owns the property. These facts, combined with the timing of [his] personal-injury complaint and the multiple complaints and police report [he] filed against defendants, support the trial court’s determination that [he] filed this complaint to harass defendants.” The court was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that” the trial court made a mistake in imposing sanctions. Affirmed.