Case ID: mich_483/html/0880-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Young v Nandi,
    No. 134799.
   Motion for Clarification Granted January 27, 2009:

On order of the Court, the motion for clarification of this Court’s October 3, 2008, order is considered, and it is granted. For the reasons stated in that order, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ request for a hearing concerning attorney fees in the plaintiffs favor as case evaluation sanctions under MCR 2.403(O)(6)(b). “Under the facts of this case, such a hearing was necessary.” In our October 3, 2008 order, we remanded this case to the Oakland Circuit Court “for a hearing on the subject of a reasonable attorney fee, consistent with Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519 (2008).” We clarify, however, that such a hearing shall occur only if the Oakland Circuit Court first determines, on remand, that the plaintiff is still entitled to case evaluation sanctions in light of the rulings made by the Court of Appeals. We do not retain jurisdiction. Court of Appeals No. 266261.

Cavanagh and Weaver, JJ. We would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave to appeal.