Rejection of an amended complaint; Barkley v Southfield; MCR 2.118(A)(1); Harmless error; MCR 2.613(A); Whether candidates who were “endorsed” at an endorsement convention were “nominated” (triggering MCL 168.558(1)’s filing requirement); MCL 168.596; MCL 168.591(1); MCL 168.686; Michigan Democratic Party (MDP); Affidavit of identity (AOI)

While the court held that the Court of Claims erred in rejecting plaintiff-Davis’s amended complaint, it concluded that he failed to show he was entitled to the relief he requested on appeal under the circumstances of the case. Thus, it affirmed summary disposition for defendant. The original complaint contained one count seeking a writ of mandamus and a second count seeking declaratory relief. Both rested “on the same underlying legal theory” – that two men endorsed by the MDP at an April endorsement convention “were in fact ‘nominated’ at that convention[,]” triggering an AOI filing requirement that was not met, with the result that neither man can be placed on the November general election ballot. The Court of Claims rejected this argument in the order on appeal. Davis did not challenge the merits of that ruling here. Rather, he challenged the Court of Claims’ rejection of his amended complaint, which added a third count asking for a ruling that a Secretary of State “interpretive statement was legally incorrect for the same underlying reasons” he argued as to the other two counts. The court agreed with him that Barkley made it clear that “the amended complaint was timely filed under MCR 2.118(A)(1) and should have been accepted, as it was Davis’s right to amend his complaint once under that rule.” But it disagreed with his contention “that this error automatically entitles him to his requested relief—namely,” vacatur of the summary disposition ruling and remand to “essentially start this case over,” with only days remaining before the MDP’s fall nominating convention. The court considered the harmless error rule, MCR 2.613(A), which Davis did not address. While the Court of Claims erred in refusing to accept his amended complaint, it provided him “with a substantive answer to the underlying legal question shared by all his claims within the expedited timeframe required by those claims.” He did not suggest “that his amended complaint would fare any better under the Court of Claims’ substantive analysis than his original one did” and he did not make “any attempt to challenge the merits of the Court of Claims’ ruling on appeal[.]”