Dismissal for violation of MCR 1.109(D)(2); Vicencio v Ramirez; Dean v Tucker; Actual prejudice factor; Whether claims were improperly joined; Applicability of MCR 2.207; MCR 2.203(A)

Holding that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiff’s action for alleged violations of MCR 1.109(D)(2) and improper joinder of claims, the court vacated and remanded. Plaintiff sought payment for medical services provided to three individuals (A, S, and N) for injuries they received in unrelated car accidents. The complaint included a statement that plaintiff was not aware of any civil action between the parties arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. But S had sued defendant for personal injury protection benefits three days earlier, and the day after plaintiff filed suit, A did the same. The court noted the trial court did not conduct a hearing before dismissing plaintiff’s case, or “explain in its order why dismissal was warranted under the circumstances. By failing to evaluate other available options on the record before dismissing” the case, it abused its discretion. The court also concluded “plaintiff’s conduct is not the sort of conduct that typically warrants dismissal.” The record did not show that its violation of MCR 1.109(D)(2) “was either ‘flagrant’ or” wanton. Further, the failure to disclose the two cases when filing its complaint constituted a single violation, and the second of the two cases was not filed until after plaintiff filed its suit. The court also noted that actual prejudice to defendant is a factor to be considered under Dean, and defendant did “not appear to have been prejudiced by plaintiff’s failure to comply with MCR 1.109(D)(2).” As to the improper joinder basis, “MCR 2.207 does not obligate parties to do anything” and it relates “to the misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties, not claims.” Rather, MCR 2.203(A) governs the joinder of claims. In “joining its three claims against defendant for an alleged failure to fully reimburse plaintiff, [plaintiff] appears to have complied with MCR 2.203(A). But, even if [its] claims were somehow improperly joined, the appropriate remedy is not to dismiss the misjoined claims, but rather to sever them and conduct separate trials.”