When There is No Timely Response Filed to a Motion, Does the Filing Party Win by Default?
If an opponent misses a briefing deadline, or files a brief that the court rejects, the pending motion does not win by default. A recent unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals decision, Epps v. NPT-313 Co. LLC, confirms that a trial court cannot grant an unopposed motion for summary disposition without deciding it on the merits. A court can enforce its scheduling order strictly, but it cannot bypass that analysis of the claims.
What Does a Motion for Summary Disposition Require?
Michigan’s summary disposition rule, MCR 2.116(C)(10), tests whether there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. The party moving for dismissal carries the initial burden. It must support its position with deposition testimony, affidavits, or other documentary evidence showing it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Only after the movant carries that burden does the other side have to come forward with evidence of a factual dispute.
That burden does not disappear when no one responds to the motion. A missed deadline, standing alone, is not grounds for dismissal, and it does not relieve the court of deciding whether the motion is actually sound. If a motion fails to present a viable argument, or if the movant’s own evidence reveals a factual dispute, the motion should be denied even without opposition. The Court rule itself says judgment “if appropriate” shall be entered.
Where Did the Trial Court Go Wrong?
The defendant filed a summary disposition motion. The trial court’s scheduling order capped the response and brief at twenty pages and warned that noncompliant filings would be rejected with no opportunity to refile. The plaintiff filed a twenty-four page response. The court rejected it, treated the motion as unopposed, and dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the plaintiff had failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact because no response was filed.
The Court of Appeals had no issue with the rejection of the brief, as enforcing a clear scheduling order was within the trial court’s discretion. The dismissal was the problem. The order contained no analysis of the sanction factors, and it never evaluated whether the defendant’s motion actually established entitlement to judgment. The Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal and remanded.
Practical Takeaways
For the movant, the motion still must be won from the record. Even when the other side fails to respond, the court has to make a merits finding. If you are seeking dismissal, give the court the record it needs to say why the motion succeeds on its own terms, not just that it went unanswered. For the respondent, the page limit and deadline in the scheduling order are not technicalities. A rejected brief is the same as not filing one, so compliance with the scheduling order is critical.