Setting aside a default judgment; Good cause; Verification of motions & proofs of service; MCR 1.109(D)(3); MCR 2.107(C)(3) & (D); Harmless error; Failure to plead the words of the alleged libel in the complaint; Motion to amend the complaint; Futility

The court concluded the trial court did not err by setting aside the default judgment. Also, defendant-Dr. Shafer’s “motion did not need to be verified, and it was signed in accordance with the court rule.” Further, defendants were properly granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) because plaintiff-Palen “failed to plead the words of the alleged libel in her complaint.” Finally, “the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying [her] motion to amend because her requested amendment would not include the words she claims were defamatory and, for that reason,” would have been futile. The appeal concerned whether the trial court erred by dismissing plaintiff’s claims that Shafer and defendant-Sparrow Hospital “made libelous statements about her.” Plaintiff argued that “Dr. Shafer failed to show good cause for” setting aside the default judgment entered against her. The court found that “Dr. Shafer served her motion for summary disposition by mailing it on [12/9/22], which was timely under MCR 2.107(C)(3). Dr. Shafer’s motion for summary disposition was an action to defend the case and, therefore, the entry of the default judgment was unwarranted.” As to plaintiff’s assertion that defendants’ motions and proofs of service were not property verified, the court determined that “Sparrow Hospital’s proofs of service complied with MCR 1.109(D)(3)(b), but Dr. Shafer’s proofs of service did not. However, any error in this regard was harmless because there is no dispute that Palen was in fact served with Dr. Shafer’s motion for summary disposition and, indeed, she responded to the motion.” In addition, “the erroneous statement in Dr. Shafer’s original proof of service that the motion was served by certified mail was harmless.” The court noted that she “corrected the error and, in either case, the manner of mailing did not affect the outcome of the proceedings.” Affirmed.