Daniel C Krolczyk v. Hyundai Motor America

CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMay 29, 2020
Docket160606
StatusPublished

This text of Daniel C Krolczyk v. Hyundai Motor America (Daniel C Krolczyk v. Hyundai Motor America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Daniel C Krolczyk v. Hyundai Motor America, (Mich. 2020).

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

May 29, 2020 Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

160606 David F. Viviano, Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman DANIEL C. KROLCZYK and JONI KROLCZYK, Brian K. Zahra Plaintiffs-Appellants, Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth T. Clement v SC: 160606 Megan K. Cavanagh, Justices COA: 343996 HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA and BILL Oakland CC: 2017-158920-AV MARSH HYUNDAI, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. __________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The appellants shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this order addressing the following issues: (1) whether the 46th District Court properly exercised jurisdiction over this case notwithstanding that the Oakland Circuit Court’s November 18, 2015 transfer order lacked the appellees’ stipulation “to an appropriate amendment of the complaint,” Administrative Order No. 1998-1; (2) whether, assuming any error in the transfer was nonjurisdictional, the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over this case where, upon transfer, the complaint contained an ad damnum clause seeking more than the district court’s jurisdictional limit, see MCL 600.8301; and (3) whether, assuming the district court properly exercised jurisdiction upon transfer notwithstanding the complaint’s ad damnum clause, the district court nevertheless had the authority to permit amendment of the complaint. In addition to the brief, the appellants shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellees shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being served with the appellants’ brief. The appellees shall also electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellants. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellants within 14 days of being served with the appellees’ brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. May 29, 2020 a0526 Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Daniel C Krolczyk v. Hyundai Motor America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-c-krolczyk-v-hyundai-motor-america-mich-2020.