Court Opinion

ID: 9594000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:26:10.912443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:19.890750
License: Public Domain

Griffin, J.
In these consolidated cases, plaintiffs appeal as of right the circuit court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims against defendants. We affirm.
We concur and join in all portions of Judge White’s opinion except section vi. Regarding the issue of sanctions, we find that plaintiffs’ claims of appeal are not supported by any authority from Michigan, other jurisdictions, or recognized legal sources. As stated by defendant Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., in the. introductory paragraph of its brief:
The trial court was entirely correct in dismissing plaintiffs’ respective complaints for failure to state any legally recognizable cause of action. Michigan courts have already repeatedly rejected plaintiffs’ theories. Buczkowski v McKay, 441 Mich 96; 490 NW2d 330 (1992), reh den 441 Mich 1202; 491 NW2d 830 (1992); King v R G Industries, Inc, 182 Mich App 343; 451 NW2d 874 (1990); Raines v Colt Industries, Inc, 757 F Supp 819 (ED Mich, 1991). Additionally, plaintiffs’ theories have been rejected in every state to *377consider them, as long ago as 1973 and as recently as August 2, 1995. See, e.g., Bennet v Cincinnati Checker Cab Co, 353 F Supp 1206 (ED Ky, 1973); Forni v Sturm, Ruger, et al, slip op No. 132994-94 (S Ct NY County, NY, 8/2/95). Plaintiffs’ complaints simply ignore this clear precedent.
In light of this authority, as well as Williams v Cunningham Drug Stores, Inc, 429 Mich 495; 418 NW2d 381 (1988), and Scott v Harper Recreation, Inc, 444 Mich 441; 506 NW2d 857 (1993), we conclude that plaintiffs have not advanced a reasonable, good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. MCR 2.114(D)(2). For these reasons, we hold that plaintiffs’ appeals are vexatious because they were taken without any reasonable basis for belief that there was a meritorious issue to be determined on appeal. MCR 7.216(C)(1)(a). Dillon v DeNooyer Chevrolet Geo, 217 Mich App 163, 169-170; 550 NW2d 846 (1996); Cvengros v Farm Bureau Ins, 216 Mich App 261; 548 NW2d 698 (1996).
The motion by defendant Sturm, Ruger for sanctions on appeal is granted. Pursuant to MCR 7.216(C)(2), we remand to the circuit court for a determination and an award of defendant Sturm, Ruger’s actual damages and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred in defending against plaintiffs’ appeals.
Affirmed. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
D. C. Kolenda, J., concurred.