Motion to restore the case & set a scheduling order; One-year limitations period for such a motion; MCR 2.612; Exception for correction of clerical mistakes; MCR 2.612(C)(1); Dismissal for lack of progress; MCR 2.502(A)(1); Reinstatement for good cause; MCR 2.502(C); The gravamen of an action; Lieberman v. Orr; Scheduling conference; MCR 2.401(A); Laches; Williamstown Twp. v. Sandalwood Ranch, LLC; Home-Owners Ins. Co. v. Perkins

Holding that the trial court erred by denying plaintiff-former employee’s motion to restore his case and set a scheduling order, the court reversed and remanded. Plaintiff sued defendant-former employer alleging several claims arising from the termination of his employment. Defendant removed the case to federal court, which later found removal was unwarranted and remanded the case back to the state court. Somehow the remand order was never filed with the state court. More than three years later, plaintiff filed a motion to restore the case and set a scheduling order. The trial court denied the motion finding that plaintiff failed to present good cause for reinstating the matter and that his action was barred by laches. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by relying on MCR 2.612 to deny his motion, noting the trial court “expressly agreed with plaintiff’s assertion that MCR 2.612 was inapplicable . . . and restated that it had not relied on” it when denying his motion. However, it found the trial court erred by denying his motion on the basis that he did not show good cause, finding that although he “labeled his motion as one to restore the case and set a scheduling order, the trial court’s jurisdiction was restored by the actions of the federal court and its Clerk.” Finally, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred by finding that restoring the case would be inequitable under the doctrine of laches. Given that the “statute of limitations had not expired on all of plaintiff’s claims and that plaintiff could continue to pursue at least one of [his] claims against defendant, we cannot comprehend how defendant was prejudiced by plaintiff’s delay.” Moreover, defendant “candidly recognized that it retained any liabilities during the sale process, presumably including this lawsuit.”