## Facts

- Justine Maldonado sued Ford Motor Company alleging sexual harassment by her supervisor, Daniel P. Bennett.
- Before trial, the circuit court excluded evidence of Bennett’s prior indecent exposure conviction as inadmissible.
- After the exclusion ruling, Maldonado’s counsel issued public statements criticizing the ruling and the judge, and publicized the excluded conviction.
- Counsel and plaintiff engaged in ongoing public activities (including rallies, leafletting, and media interviews) accusing the judge of bias toward Ford and asserting that the court was keeping the truth from the jury.
- The trial judge expressly warned that continued efforts to publicize excluded evidence or taint the jury pool would result in dismissal.
- Despite the warning, counsel gave a televised interview shortly before trial repeating criticism of the exclusion ruling and alleging broader judicial bias.
- The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice as a sanction, finding repeated and intentional conduct aimed at tainting the prospective jury pool and frustrating the administration of justice.

## Issues

1. Whether a Michigan trial court has inherent and rule- or statute-based authority to dismiss a civil action as a sanction for deliberate, repeated extrajudicial publicity of inadmissible evidence in violation of court orders.
2. Whether dismissal was an abuse of discretion, including whether the court was required to find actual prejudice (or hold an evidentiary hearing) rather than applying a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” standard.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court held that trial courts possess both inherent authority and express authority under Michigan law to dismiss an action as a sanction for serious misconduct.
- The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the case given the repeated, deliberate violations and the proximity of the publicity to trial.
- The Court rejected the requirement of an evidentiary hearing to prove actual prejudice, concluding the governing standard is whether the conduct created a substantial likelihood of material prejudice.
- The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ remand and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- Michigan trial courts have inherent authority to control proceedings and sanction litigants and counsel to protect the integrity of the judicial process, including dismissal in extreme circumstances.
- Trial courts also have express authority to dismiss for failure to comply with court rules or orders, including under MCR 2.504(B)(1), and authority to enter orders necessary to effectuate jurisdiction under MCL 600.611.
- When sanctions are based on attorney (or party) extrajudicial statements about pending litigation, the relevant test is whether the speech presents a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to the proceeding, not whether actual prejudice is proven.
- Dismissal may be justified where lesser measures are inadequate and the record shows intentional, repeated misconduct designed to undermine a fair trial.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed trial-court power to dismiss civil actions as a sanction for deliberate, repeated violations of court orders through public dissemination of excluded evidence, and held that a substantial likelihood of material prejudice—without proof of actual prejudice—can support dismissal to protect the fairness and orderly administration of justice.


Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 719 N.W.2d 809 (Mich. 2006)