Fraser v. Livingston, County of et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying defendants' motion for attorney fees 45 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DENNIS EDWARD FRASER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case Number: 09-14906
Honorable Denise Page Hood

LIVINGSTON COUNTY,
COUNTY SHERIFF ROBERT BEZOTTE,
TARA BLACK,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Shana Adkins and Tara Black’s Motion for

Attorney Fees [Docket No. 45, filed April 8, 2011]. The Court granted Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on March 25, 2011 [Docket No. 41].
II.

ANALYSIS
Defendants bring this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and

Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.2591. Defendants filed essentially the same motion in the
companion case Fraser v. Law Offices of Parker and Parker, Case No. 11-10585. In diversity
cases, such as the instant action, the issue of attorney fees is governed by state law. Hometown
Folks LLC v. S&B Wilson, Inc., 643 F.3d 520, 533 (6th Cir. 2011). Section 600.2591 allows the
Court to award attorney fees to the prevailing party if the Court “finds that a civil action or
defense to a civil action is frivolous…” A civil action or defense is frivolous when 1) the action
was meant to harass, embarrass, or injure the prevailing party; 2) the party had no reasonable

1

basis to believe the underlying facts were true; or 3) the claim had no legal merit. MICH. COMP.
LAWS § 600.2591(a).
Defendants argue that they are entitled to fees because Plaintiff was aware that his claims
arose from the estate proceedings in Livingston County Probate Court and that he failed to
comply with that court’s orders. Plaintiff’s decision to bring this action based on the prior estate
proceedings, although unsuccessful, was not completely devoid of legal merit. “Not every error
in legal analysis constitutes a frivolous position. Moreover, merely because this Court concludes
that a legal position asserted by a party should be rejected does not mean that the party was
acting frivolously in advocating its position.” Kitchen v. Kitchen, 641 N.W.2d 245, 251 (Mich.
2002). Defendants’ Motion for Attorney Fees is DENIED.
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Attorney Fees [Docket No. 45, filed

April 8, 2011] is DENIED.
S/Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: December 8, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon Dennis E. Fraser, 21
Poppy Street, Homosassa, FL 34446 and counsel of record on December 8, 2011 , by electronic
and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

2