Deming v. Ch Novi, L.L.C.

Deming v. Ch Novi, L.L.C.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff appeals by right from the trial court's denial of her disqualification motion and its grant of defendant's motion for summary disposition dismissing plaintiff's claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), MCL 445.901 et seq. We affirm.

First, plaintiff contends that the trial court, Judge Daniel Patrick O'Brien¹, should have been disqualified because he exhibited bias and prejudice against plaintiff and her attorney.1 Plaintiff moved for Judge O'Brien's disqualification under MCR 2.003(C)(1)(b), which provides that disqualification of a judge is warranted when:

The judge, based on objective and reasonable perceptions, has either (i) a serious risk of actual bias impacting the due process rights of a party as enunciated in Caperton v Massey, [556] U.S. [868]; 556 U.S. 868; 129 S Ct 2252; 173 L Ed 2d 1208 (2009), or (ii) has failed to adhere to the appearance of impropriety standard set forth in Canon 2 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct.

Plaintiff essentially asserts that Judge O'Brien is anti-Semitic or that he believes promotion of anti-Semitism is, in the words of plaintiff's brief, a "good thing." We would not hesitate to mandate recusal of a judge whose conduct or statements displayed or even implied such bias. However, after reviewing the record, we fully and unequivocally reject this accusation against Judge O'Brien. Nothing whatsoever in the trial court record suggests any such bias. The accusation is wholly without basis and the motion for disqualification was properly denied.

We also reject Plaintiff's argument that the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary disposition² and dismissing all of her claims.³ Plaintiff was offended by the movie Drive. It is not surprising that some moviegoers would find the film offensive; it is filled with disturbingly violent scenes and brutal characters. However, being offended by a film is not, in and of itself, grounds  [*3] for a lawsuit. Plaintiff attempts to make it actionable by asserting that defendants violated the MCPA by advertising the film with a preview that is so inconsistent with the actual film to which it is intended to draw an audience that it is "[u]nfair, unconscionable, or deceptive." MCL 445.903(1). We are unaware of, and plaintiff does not refer us to, any such prior application of the MCPA.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.