Marcelli v. Walke

2009 WL 415998 (6th Cir. 2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

This dispute originates in an indemnification agreement between P and Walker (Ds). Farmers Insurance provided payment and performance bonds to P for municipal construction projects. As part of the consideration for issuance of those bonds, Farmers required P to enter into an indemnification agreement. When a dispute later arose over whether P was fulfilling their obligations under the indemnification agreement, and Farmers filed suit in Michigan state court. The court found in Farmer's favor and eventually awarded damages. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed and the Michigan Supreme Court denied further review. P then filed a second suit in Oakland County Circuit Court, asking the court to set aside the previous judgment. Farmer moved for summary disposition based on res judicata, which the circuit court granted. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. P then filed a complaint in federal district court alleging fraud, conspiracy, legal malpractice, violation of RICO as well as violations of their due process and equal protection rights. The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismissed those. It also ordered Ps to provide a Case Statement to assure compliance with Rule 11. P's counsel then filed a statement that the complaint was filed in the erroneous belief that the pleading satisfied the requirements of Rule 11 in all its particulars. Counsel became aware that the action could not be maintained in good faith and commenced the process of negotiating dismissal of the action with his clients and all counsel of record. P entered voluntary dismissals against the remaining Ds with proof of service. The district court entered an order dismissing the claims with prejudice under stipulation of counsel. Sixteen months P filed an Affidavit with the district court, requesting that the court reopen his case because his attorney had allegedly acted without his consent. The court denied the motion. P appealed.