 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pierson v. Ahern7/19/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Meter and Owens, JJ.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right, and defendant cross appeals, from the trial court's order granting defendant summary disposition on plaintiffs' first amended complaint, and granting plaintiffs' motion for summary disposition of defendant's countercomplaint. We affirm.
Plaintiffs commenced this action for defamation after defendant allegedly sent a package of materials to third-party defendant Tokio Ogihara, president of third-party defendant Ogihara America, where plaintiffs and defendant were employed. The package consisted of a letter that allegedly disparaged plaintiff David Gaffka's work performance and photographs that allegedly showed examples of his poor workmanship. The return address label on the package listed plaintiff Bruce Pierson as the sender. The company investigated the incident, concluded that defendant was the actual sender of the package, and subsequently discharged him for violating the company's code of conduct. Defendant filed a countercomplaint and a third-party complaint alleging claims for contribution, abuse of process, conspiracy to abuse process, and discharge in violation of public policy. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' first amended complaint pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure to state a claim), and dismissed defendant's countercomplaint and third-party complaint pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).
Plaintiffs first argue that the trial court erred in dismissing their defamation claims under MCR 2.116(C)(8). A trial court's decision regarding summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Corley v Detroit Bd of Ed, 470 Mich 274, 277; 681 NW2d 342 (2004). A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) challenges the legal sufficiency of the claim based on the pleadings alone. Id.
To establish a defamation claim, a plaintiff must show (1) a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged publication to another party, (3) fault amounting at a minimum to negligence on the publisher's part, and (4) either actionability of the statement regardless of special harm or the existence of special harm as a result of the publication. Kevorkian v American Medical Ass'n, 237 Mich App 1, 8-9; 602 NW2d 233 (1999). The complained-of statements must be pleaded with specificity. Royal Palace Homes, Inc v Channel 7 of Detroit, Inc, 197 Mich App 48, 53-54, 56-57; 495 NW2d 392 (1992). In their first amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged that defendant sent a package of allegedly defamatory materials consisting of a letter and photographs to Ogihara, but plaintiffs did not attach copies of the letter or photographs, or describe their substance in their complaint. We agree with the trial court that plaintiffs failed to plead a claim of defamation with sufficient specificity regarding the allegedly defamatory statements. Id. Summary disposition was proper under MCR 2.116(C)(8).
Plaintiffs also argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion to amend their complaint. In its opinion, the trial court stated that even if it had allowed plaintiffs to file their proposed second amended complaint, it would have found that summary disposition was still proper because, with regard to plaintiffs' defamation claims, plaintiffs "failed to present sufficient evidence alleging a question of material fact of the defamatory nature of the letter and photographs." In essence, the trial court concluded that even if plaintiffs had filed their proposed second amended complaint, summary disposition was warranted under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Plaintiffs claim the court's decision was erroneous because it required plaintiffs to prove economic damages ev
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|