NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0200n.06 F iled: Marc h 13, 2009 No. 08-1434 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
F RA NK VE G EL; M ARIAVE G EL , Plain tif fs- Ap pe lla nts , v. LA NG AN D A SSOC IA TES; F OSTER F IN ISH , De fe nd ants , and D O U G A L L D ESIG N A S S O C I A TES, IN CO RP OR AT ED ; FBK ASS OC IA TES, IN CO RP OR

AT ED , Defendants-A

ppellees
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O N A PP EALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E ASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

O P I N I O N

BEF ORE: KEITH , C OLE, and M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s. COLE, Circuit Jud ge. In this diversity action under Michig an law, appellants Frank a nd Maria Veg el (the “Ve g els”) sued sever al entities for neg lige nce alleg edly result i n g i n a p ersona l injury to Fra nk Veg el. Appellee Doug all Design Associates (“D oug all Design”) w as not an initial defe ndant but was identified by another defe ndant, pursuant to sec tion 600.2957(2) of the Michig an Compil ed L aws, a s a non-pa rty potentially

at fa ult. Accor dingly , approxi m at el y five year s after F ra nk Ve g e l w a s in

jur e d, the Ve g e ls a

me nd e d th e ir

c omp la int

to n ame Do ug a ll D e sign as a defe ndant. Doug all Desig n moved for summar y judgme nt, claiming that the suit was barr ed byNo. 08-1434

Ve ge l v . D ou

ga ll D esig

n A sso cs.

- 2 - Michig an’s thre e-year

statute of limitations for persona l-injury actions. See Mich. Comp. L aws § 600.5805(10). The district court g rante d the motion. We r eview a g rant of summar y judgme nt de novo. Mi lle r v. A dm in. Of fic eof t heCou rts , 448 F .3 d 8 87 , 8 93 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) . T he mov ingpa rt y is e nti tle d to summa

ry jud g me nt “ if

the ple a din g s, the discover

y and dis closure materials on file, and any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue as to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 5 6( c ); see also Ande rson v. Liberty L obby, Inc

. , 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). We view f actua l
e vid e nc e in t

he light m os t f

avo ra ble to t he no n- mov ingpa

rt y a nd dr aw al l r e a so na

ble inf e re nc e s in that party ’s favor. See Hende rson v. W alled Lake Consol. Sch. , 469 F.3d 479, 487 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Summary judgme nt is not appropriate if the evidenc e would per mit a rea sonable jury

to retu rn a verdic t for the non- moving pa rty
. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 251-52. The Ve g els contend that the action should have been go v er n ed by the six -year

statute of limit at i o n s ap p l i ca

b l e t o ar ch i t ec t s , p ro fe s s i o n al en gi n ee rs , an d co n tra ct o rs i nce rt ai nca s es involving h arm c aused by

“improveme nts to real prope rty .” See M ic h
. Co mp . L aw s § 6 0 0
. 5 8 39(1). Alternatively , the Veg els argue that their c laims ag ainst Doug all Design related bac k to the date of their orig inal complaint under F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 15, or that if the three -year

statute of limit ations applies, it was extended by virtue of s ec t ion 600.2957(2) of the Michig an Compiled L aws. After

car efully revie wing the re cord, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, w e conc lude that t he district cour

t was cor rec t in its conclusion that Doug all Design was e ntitled to sum mary judgme nt. As the district court’s opinion corr ectly sets out the l aw gove rning the i ssues raise d andNo. 08-1434

Ve ge l v . D ou

ga ll D esig

n A sso cs.

- 3 - clea rly articulates the re asons under lying its dec ision, iss uance of a full written opinion by this Court would serve no useful purpose . Acc ording ly , for t h e re asons s tated in the district cour t’s memorandum opinion and orde r date d November 20, 2007, we AF F IRM
.