Wood v. 36th Dist. Court

1

BARI BLAKE WOOD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 36TH DISTRICT COURT, Defendant-Appellant, and LAWANDA CROSBY and 36TH DISTRICT JUDGE WILLIAM C. MCCONICO, Defendants. BARI BLAKE WOOD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 36TH DISTRICT COURT, LAWANDA CROSBY, and 36TH DISTRICT JUDGE WILLIAM C. MCCONICO, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 360103, 360226

Court of Appeals of Michigan

May 18, 2023

UNPUBLISHED

Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 21-005544-CZ

Before: LETICA, P.J., and BORRELLO and CAMERON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated appeals^[1] involve allegations that defendants, 36th District Court (District Court), 36th District Court Judge William C. McConico, and LaWanda Crosby, wrongfully terminated the employment of plaintiff, Bari Blake Wood, as a magistrate judge for the District Court. In Docket No 360103, the District Court appeals by right the trial court's order denying the District Court's motion for summary disposition of the claims against it and Crosby on the ground that the District Court and Crosby had governmental immunity. In Docket No. 360226, defendants appeal by leave granted^[2] the trial court's order denying in part their motion for summary disposition of Wood's claims on grounds other than governmental immunity. For the reasons explained herein, we reverse the trial court's opinion and order denying defendants' motion for summary disposition, in part, and remand this case to the trial court for entry of an order dismissing Wood's claims in full.

I. BASIC FACTS

In January 2016, Wood was appointed to be a magistrate in the District Court. The District Court's then chief judge Nancy Blount, appointed Wood to be the chief magistrate in November 2017.

Wood alleged that, during her employment as a magistrate, she observed the District Court's personnel commit legal and civil rights violations in criminal cases, which were done at the request of the District Court's administration. More specifically, she alleged that she saw other court personnel approve warrants that, in her view, lacked "crucial legal requirements." She stated that she was also instructed to approve search warrants submitted by certain police officers. Wood alleged that she was subject to numerous complaints by law enforcement officers because she would not "acquiesce in conducting criminal proceedings based on legally deficient warrants." She stated that the District Court's then administrator expressed dissatisfaction with Wood's failure to approve over 100 warrants from July 2018 through September 2018.

Wood alleged that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the District Court in federal court in April 2019, for allegedly habitually violating civil rights. Wood claimed that she was questioned by the District Court in May 2019 about an acquaintance who informed her of the litigation before the ACLU filed its complaint. She also alleged that the District Court was concerned that Wood would testify truthfully when deposed for that litigation.

In November 2019, the Supreme Court appointed Chief Judge McConico to serve as the District Court's chief judge. Wood alleged that Chief Judge McConico disapproved of Wood and decided to remove Wood as chief magistrate even before he assumed the office of chief judge. Chief Judge McConico took over as chief judge on January 1, 2020, and Crosby became the District Court's interim administrator on the same day. Wood alleged that Chief Judge McConico and Crosby fired her on January 9, 2020.

In April 2020, Wood sued the District Court, Chief Judge McConico, and Crosby in federal court. She alleged a First Amendment claim, a claim of termination contrary to public policy under Michigan law, and a claim that defendants violated Michigan's Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA), MCL 15.361 et seq.

In March 2021, the federal court dismissed Wood's claim premised on a violation of the First Amendment because her speech activities all occurred as part of her employment as a governmental agent and such speech was not protected by the First Amendment. As for the remaining claims under Michigan law, the federal court recognized that it had the discretion to hear those claims under its supplemental jurisdiction, but it declined to do so after having dismissed the only claim for which it had original jurisdiction. For that reason, the federal court dismissed Wood's claims without prejudice.

In May 2021, Wood sued the District Court, Chief Judge McConico, and the District Court's administrator, Crosby, in circuit court for allegedly wrongfully terminating her employment as a magistrate. She sued Chief Judge McConico and Crosby in both their official capacities and as individuals. She alleged that her termination was contrary to public policy, violated the WPA, and amounted to tortious interference with a prospective business relationship. Wood later amended her complaint and withdrew the WPA claim.

Defendants moved for summary disposition in August 2021. Defendants argued that the federal court "conclusively determined a material fact issue"-namely, that Wood's speech was made as part of Wood's job. Defendants maintained that the federal court's resolution of the First Amendment claim estopped Wood from arguing that her speech constituted an activity that was protected under Michigan law. They further argued that the federal court in effect determined that there was no causal relationship between Wood's speech and her termination. Defendants maintained that Wood could not relitigate whether she was wrongfully terminated for her speech.

Defendants also argued that Wood's tortious interference claim failed on other grounds. They contended that Wood had no valid expectancy in the chief magistrate position. They also asserted that Chief Judge McConico alone had the authority to terminate Wood's relationship, and, therefore, Crosby had no role in terminating Wood. They maintained that Wood did not allege that either Chief Judge McConico or Crosby acted for their own benefit, which she had to allege in order to establish that they, as agents for the District Court, interfered with Wood's relationship with the District Court. And they further asserted that Wood failed to allege or present evidence to corroborate that they had an improper motive.

Defendants maintained that the trial court had to dismiss Wood's wrongful termination claim because she failed to allege how any defendant was involved or reacted to her alleged refusal to act contrary to law. Wood also failed, they stated, to allege any facts that Chief Judge McConico or Crosby was aware of Wood's involvement in the ACLU litigation or how it came to be that they retaliated against her on the basis of that litigation. Wood's wrongful termination claim was, they argued, really just a disguised restatement of her federal First Amendment retaliation claim.

Indeed, defendants stated that there were no allegations against Crosby that established any claims against her because merely delivering a message of termination was not actionable.

Finally, defendants argued that Chief Judge McConico had absolute immunity from suit under MCL 691.1407(5). They similarly argued that Wood failed to plead in avoidance of Crosby's governmental immunity because Wood failed to allege that Crosby was grossly negligent.

In November 2021, the trial court entered its opinion and order denying in part and granting in part defendants' motion for summary disposition. The court determined, in relevant part, that Wood did not adequately allege her claim of tortious interference and dismissed that claim.^[3] The trial court further ruled that Chief Judge McConico had absolute immunity for his decision to terminate Wood's employment. The court, however, did not agree that governmental immunity applied to Crosby or the District Court. The court reasoned that further discovery was necessary to determine whether Crosby performed a governmental function and acted with gross negligence in Wood's termination. The court thus concluded that summary disposition of the claim against Crosby was inappropriate. Moreover, the court determined that, if Crosby was found to be grossly negligent, the District Court could then be held vicariously liable for Crosby's gross negligence. For these reasons, the trial court dismissed Wood's tortious interference claim and all the claims against Chief Judge McConico. The court, however, denied the motion to dismiss Wood's claim of wrongful termination contrary to public policy.

In January 2022, the District Court appealed by right the trial court's decision to deny defendants' motion to dismiss the claims against the District Court and Crosby on grounds that they were immune from suit (Docket No. 360103). Defendants appealed by leave granted the trial court's decision to deny their motion for summary disposition premised on grounds other than governmental immunity in February 2022 (Docket No. 360226).

II. JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE

In this Court, Wood challenges this Court's decision to grant leave to appeal in Docket No. 360226 for the same reasons that she raised in her answer in opposition to the application. Specifically, Wood argues that the District Court's application was untimely because it was filed more than 21 days after the trial court entered its order denying in part defendants' motion for summary disposition. She also claims that the District Court failed to include several requirements applicable to an application for leave to appeal.

"Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal is always within the scope of this Court's review," and this Court must review whether it has jurisdiction even after granting leave to appeal. Chen v Wayne State Univ 284 Mich.App. 172, 191; 771 N.W.2d 172 (2009). This Court's jurisdiction is governed by statute a...