NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0167n.06 F iled: F ebruary 27, 2009 Nos. 07-1885, 07-1946 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
M IC HA EL E. TIN DA LL, P laintif f-App ellant/Cross-Appellee,
v. ONE 19 7 3 FO RD MU S T AN G ( VI N 3F 03F 139034); DA N CU NN IN G HA M ; G AR Y G U T H RI E; G UT HRIE, IN C. , a Ca lifo r nia c or por at ion , j oin tl y and s ever ally, De fend ant s- App e lle e s/C r os s- App e lla nt s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR TH E E A ST ER N DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

BEF ORE: KEITH , C OLE, and M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s. P ER CURIAM . In A u g u s t 2 0 0 5 , p l a i n t i f f M i c h a e l E
. T i n d a l l , a

M i c h i g ana t t o r

n e y, purcha sed a 1973 Ford Mustang in an onli ne auction from def endants Guthrie , I nc., Ga

ry Guthrie, and Da n Cunningham, a ll of California, for $10,300. When the vehicle de livered one wee k later w as
unacc ompanied by

a c er tificate of

title and failed to matc h the online desc ription of the vehicle , T i n d a l l a t t e m p t e d

t o re s ci n d

t h e d ea l
. T h e s el l er s b al k ed , s o T i n d al l , p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e , sued for
resc ission and damag es, alleg ing f raud a nd violation of Michiga

n’s Consumer Protection Ac t. After de fe nd ants fa ile d to ans we r or oth e rw ise re sp on d to the c omp la int , Tin da ll obt a ine d en tr y of de fa ult
. Then, having e rrone ously repr esente d that his claims were for a sum c erta in, Tindall obtained entry of a d ef au l t j u d g ment, by

the Clerk of the Court, in the amount of $296,865. On motion of theNos. 07-1885, 07-1946

Tindall v. One1973 Ford Mustang

- 2 - defe ndants, the d i s trict court se t aside the de fault judg ment, finding Tindall’s claims not to be for
a sum c erta in. The court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgme nt an d conducte d
an e vid e nti ary

he ari ng on dama g e s. On

July 16 , 2 00 7, the c ou

rt e nte re d ju dg me nt a

wa rd ingTi nd a ll $12,160 in damag es, $3,100 in costs, and $7,800 in attorney fee s. On appe al, Tindall asser ts three
c la ims of e rr or . In th e ir

c ro ss- a pp e a l, d e fe nd ants c ha lle ng e the awa rd of a tto rn e y fe e s. First, Tindall conte nds the di strict court erre d when it denied his m otion for par tial summary judgme nt on da

mag es. Gene rally , denial of a motion for summary judgme nt is not appe alable where , as here , the movant had a full hear ing on the merits of his claims and simply obtained a judg ment less favor able than de sired. See U.S. ex rel. A+ Homec are, Inc. v. Medshare s Mgmt. Group, Inc

. , 400 F.3d 428, 441 (6th Cir. 2005)
. I nsofar as the denial of plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgme nt on damag es may be reviewa ble, as Tindall arg ues, bec ause the denial ca me in the fa ce of the de fe nd ants ’ f

a ilure to a dd

uc e e vid e nc e c re a tin g a

tr ia ble fa c t is su e , it

is r e vie wa

ble on ly fo r a bu se of discre tion. Hanove r Ins. Co. v. Ame rican Eng’g Co. , 33 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 1994). On due consideration of the district court’s or ders d ated Ma rch 7, 2007, Ma

rch 20, 2007, a

nd Marc h 23, 2007, explaining the cour t’s rea soning, w e find no a buse of discr etion. Se c on d, Ti nd a ll c on te nd s h e wa s w ro ng fu lly de nie d a jur

y tr ia l on hi s c la ims fo r l os t pr of its and stat u tory

damag es. The district c ourt denied both c laims for re lief as a matter of la

w, finding ins uf fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to s us ta in t he m. H a vin g du ly c on sid e re d the re c or d, we fi nd no e rr or in t he se
ru lin g s. Third, Tindall cha lleng es the district cour t’s assessment of his dama g es. The district c ourt
awa rded Tinda ll rescission damag es of $11,885, c onsisting of the $10,300 pur cha s e price and $1,585Nos. 07-1885, 07-1946

Tindall v. One1973 Ford Mustang

- 3 - in sh ip p in g an d

r e late d e xp e n s e s ; i n c id e n ta l d a ma g e s o f $ 2 7 5 f o r to w in g an d

in s p e c ti o nf

e e s ; a nd expert witness fee s of $3,100. The district c ourt’s rea sons f or deny ing T indall additional rec overy for c onsequential damag es ar e ade quately set forth in its opinion. Tindall has set forth no per suasive
rea son to disturb the court’s ruling s on damag es. Finally , the district court a war ded Tindall re asonabl e att orney fee s under the Mic higa

n Consumer Protection Ac t
. Al t h o u gh Tindall had re quested fe es in the amount of $18,583.50 ( 52 ho ur s at an h ourl y rate of $3 50 , plu s $3 83 .5 0 in e xpe ns e s) , th e c ourt fo un d th e re qu e ste d b ill ingrate ina de qu a te ly

su bs tanti a te d. Th e c ourt

a pp lie d a n h ourl y ra

te of $1 50 and awa

rd e d atto rn e y

fe e s in the am o u n t o f $ 7 , 8 0 0
. T i n d a l l h a s n o t c h a l l e n g e d t h i s aw ar d , b u t d e f e n d an t s h a v e , i n t h e ir

c ro ssap p ea l
. De f

e n d an t s co rr ec t l y

co n t en d t h at u n d er

M i ch i gan l aw , a p ar t y

p ro ce ed i n g pro se has not incurre d attorney

fee s and there fore cannot r ecove r attorne y fee s, even if the par

ty is a licensed
a ttorney . S

ee Omdahl v. W

est Iron County Bd. of Educ. , 733 N.W.2d 380, 386 (Mich. 2007) (“[T ] h er e m ust be separ ate identities betwe en the attorney and the c lient, and a pe rson who
re p re s en t s h i mself or he rself c annot re cover actua l attorney

fee s even if the pro se ind ivi du a l is a l i c e n s e d a t t o r n e y . ” ) ; F MB -Fi rst Mich. Bank v . Bailey , 591 N.W.2d 676, 683 (Mich. App. 1998) (“ Be cau s e a nat t o rn ey

i s an age n to r s u

b s t i tu t e w h o ac t s i nt h e s t ea d o f a n o t h er , a p ar t y

ac t i n g in p r o p r ia pe rsona cannot truly be said to be a

n attorney for himself. It is thus i mpossible to incur attorney fee s when one is not repre sented by an attorney , i.e., someone othe r than the a ctual par ty .”); Tro sza k v . Pra nte ra , Nos. 280285, 282112, 2008 WL 5273547 at *4 (Mich. Ct. App. De c. 18, 2008) (unpublished) (“

pro se pa rt ie s are no t e lig ibl e fo r a tto rn e y fe e sanc tio ns ” ); Hagen v . Jones- Hagen , No. 2 70 93 0, 20 08 WL90 21 07 a t *5 (M ic h. Ct. Ap p. Ap r. 3, 20 08 ) ( un pu bli sh e d) (“No pa

rt yNos. 07-1885, 07-1946

Tindall v. One1973 Ford Mustang

Tindall contends def

endants for feited this basis for r eview of the attorne y

fee s awa rd by 1 failing to raise it below. Although defe ndants objected to a war d of attorne y

fee s below, they

did not specific ally asser

t Tindall’s disability

as a pro se litigant. Ye t, though this specif ic objection may no t ha ve be e n p re se rv e d, we m ay reach it t o c or re c t th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ru lin g be c a us e it p os e s a purely leg al question, the answe r is clear , the par ties have ha d a full opportunity to brief it, and our ruling results in no unfair pr ejudice. S ee U nited States v. Ellison , 462 F.3d 557, 560- 61 (6th Cir. 20 06 ); Lill ard v. Shelby

County Bd. of Educ. , 76 F.3d 716, 722 ( 6th Cir. 1996).

- 4 - repr esentinghim or herse lf, eve n a party who i s a li cense d attorney , is entitled to attorney fee s.”). 1 I t f oll ow s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s awa rd of a tto rn e y fe e s wa s im

pr op e r u nd e r M ic hig an la

w a nd mus t be re verse d. Ac c or din g ly , th e dis tr ict co ur t’ s ju dg me nt i s AF F IRMED in part . T he jud g me nt i s AF F IRM ED insofar as it a war ds plaintiff Tindall $12,160 in da mag es and $3,100 in c osts, but the

awa rd of $7 ,8 00 in atto rn e y

fe e s is RE VE RSE D
.