Opinion ID: 846489
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: By ordering defendant to enter an order disposing of plaintiff’s claim within 28 days, our Court essentially requires plaintiff and the circuit court to resolve this contract matter by litigation. Defendant had no clear legal duty to issue an order because she stated that contract discussions, rather than adjudication, might address the matter. The chief judge has undertaken contract negotiations in which plaintiff has participated. Thus, I respectfully dissent. 2 MCR 3.302(B), in relevant part, provides: If another adequate remedy is available to the party seeking the order, a complaint for superintending control may not be filed. 4 YOUNG, J., joins the statement of CORRIGAN, J. I, Corbin R. Davis, 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 26, 2006 _________________________________________ d0523 Clerk