STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MATTHEW S. DEPERNO and DEPERNO LAW UNPUBLISHED OFFICE, PLLC, December 1, 2016
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v No. 328739 Kalamazoo Circuit Court ALBERT W. LAAKSONEN II, SUSAN DURIAN LC No. 2015-000175-CZ METZGER, and LAAKSONEN LAW OFFICES, PC,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SAWYER, P.J., and MARKEY and O'BRIEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right the circuit court's orders granting defendants' motion to set aside defaults, granting defendants' motion for summary disposition, and denying plaintiffs' motion to strike documents from the court file. We affirm.
This dispute arises out of a contentious history between Matthew S. DePerno, Albert W. Laaksonen, II, and their law offices. In 2011, Cathleen and Ronald Moffit retained DePerno and his law office to represent them in an insurance and tax dispute that resulted from a fire that destroyed their home. During the course of that representation, the Moffits' relationship with DePerno deteriorated, and the Moffits ultimately retained Laaksonen and his law office to file a lawsuit against DePerno. There were a variety of disputes between the Moffits and DePerno, but the original complaint filed by Laaksonen on the Moffits' behalf focused on a fee dispute.1 Specifically, DePerno sought attorney fees of more than $137,000 in relation to the underlying representation, an amount the Moffits found unreasonable.2 Several months after filing their
The Moffits' complaint included breach of contract, debt dispute, statutory violations, and legal malpractice counts against DePerno. According to the Moffits' complaint, DePerno was retained "to resolve a tax debt to the IRS of approximately $36,000." DePerno apparently sought $137,779.38, an amount greater than the $108,000 settlement reached between the Moffits and the insurance company. After the Moffits objected to the $137,000 amount, DePerno commenced a foreclosure action against the Moffits.
original complaint, the Moffits, still represented by Laaksonen, filed an amended complaint, alleging counts of assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress in addition to those counts identified above. Eventually, the Moffits and DePerno settled. In the memorandum of settlement filed by Laaksonen, Laaksonen indicated, in pertinent part, that he and the Moffits "acknowledge that this case was solely a fee dispute" and that the "[a]llegations made in the Complaint and Amended Complaints of malpractice, assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress were asserted in part to secure a restraining order preventing a real estate foreclosure."
After settling that matter, DePerno and his law office, the plaintiffs in this matter, filed the instant lawsuit against defendants, Laaksonen and his law office, alleging claims of libel, slander, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.3 Plaintiffs' claims were based on their allegation that defendants "published and disseminated malicious, reckless, and outrageous falsehoods about him, including, but not limited to, falsely asserting that DePerno assaulted a client, committed malpractice, and caused his former clients to suffer emotional distress." In essence, plaintiff claimed that, because the matter between the Moffits and DePerno was only a fee dispute, all the allegations included in the complaint or amended complaint that were not limited to