Michigan Supreme Court Confirms Discretion to Extend Answer Deadlines in Leave-to-Appeal Proceedings

1. Introduction

Case: Jerome Dubrulle v. Great Lakes Water Authority (with numerous related docket numbers and parties listed in the Court’s caption)
Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
Date: January 14, 2026

This Michigan Supreme Court order addresses a narrow—but practically important—appellate-procedure question: whether certain plaintiffs-appellees would be granted additional time to file their answers to multiple applications for leave to appeal (and one cross-application) filed by governmental defendants and related entities, including the Great Lakes Water Authority and municipalities such as the City of Detroit.

The parties requesting relief were identified by the Court as plaintiffs-appellees Joseph Achtabowski and Thomas Bearse. The order was entered “[o]n order of the Chief Justice.”

2. Summary of the Opinion (Order)

The Court granted the motions to extend time:

  • The motions by plaintiffs-appellees Joseph Achtabowski and Thomas Bearse to extend the time for filing their answers to the applications for leave to appeal of the Great Lakes Water Authority, the City of Detroit, and the group of municipalities identified as the City of Grosse Pointe, the City of Grosse Pointe Park, and the City of Grosse Pointe Woods.
  • The motion by plaintiff-appellee Joseph Achtabowski to extend the time for filing his answer to the cross-application for leave to appeal of the City of Grosse Pointe Farms and the City of Harper Woods.

The Court set a clear acceptance date: all answers will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before January 22, 2026.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

No precedents are cited in the text of this order. The Court did not rely on, distinguish, or extend any named Michigan or federal decisions. Instead, it resolved the matter through a straightforward procedural directive.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

Although the order is brief and does not provide an explanatory rationale, its structure reflects a standard exercise of the Supreme Court’s administrative and procedural authority in leave-to-appeal matters:

  • Discretionary docket control: By granting additional time and declaring filings “timely” if submitted by a specified date, the Court manages briefing schedules and ensures orderly processing of multiple related applications.
  • Uniform deadline: The Court chose a single acceptance date (January 22, 2026), reducing uncertainty across numerous consolidated or related dockets and parties identified in the caption.
  • Scope-limited relief: The order affects only the timing of answers; it does not indicate any view on the merits of the applications for leave to appeal or any underlying claims.

3.3. Impact

The immediate impact is procedural: the plaintiffs-appellees obtain additional time to respond to the pending appellate requests. In practical terms, the order underscores several broader realities of Michigan appellate practice:

  • Briefing flexibility in leave proceedings: The Court may extend deadlines when requested, especially where multiple parties and overlapping applications create coordination burdens.
  • No merits signal: Because the order addresses timing only, it should not be read as forecasting whether leave to appeal will be granted or denied.
  • Administrative precedent (not doctrinal precedent): While not a substantive “new rule” of tort, governmental immunity, or municipal liability, this order is still a useful reference point for litigants seeking schedule relief in complex, multi-party appellate dockets.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Application for leave to appeal: A request asking a higher court to accept an appeal that is not automatically available “as of right.” The court decides whether to take the case.
  • Cross-application for leave to appeal: A responsive request by another party, typically seeking review of additional issues if the main application is considered.
  • Answer (to an application): The non-moving party’s written response, usually arguing why the court should deny (or sometimes grant) the request for leave.
  • Accepted as timely filed: Even if the original deadline has passed or is extended, the court deems the filing on the new date to comply with timing requirements.

5. Conclusion

This January 14, 2026 Michigan Supreme Court order in Jerome Dubrulle v. Great Lakes Water Authority establishes no substantive doctrine on the underlying disputes identified in the caption. Its significance is procedural: it confirms the Court’s willingness to manage complex, multi-party leave-to-appeal litigation by granting extensions and setting a single, clear deadline—here, deeming answers timely if filed by January 22, 2026.