Procedural Management of Complex Infrastructure Litigation: The Michigan Supreme Court’s Time‑Extension Order in Dubrulle v. Great Lakes Water Authority

I. Introduction

The document reproduced above is not a traditional, merits-based opinion of the Michigan Supreme Court. Instead, it is a short administrative order, dated December 12, 2025, issued by Chief Justice Megan K. Cavanagh on behalf of the Court’s clerk, Elizabeth Kingston-Miller. The order concerns multiple related appeals arising from civil litigation brought by hundreds of individual and business plaintiffs against the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA), the City of Detroit, the Detroit Water & Sewerage Department (DWSD), and numerous surrounding municipalities and sanitary districts.

These underlying cases were filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court in 2021 (as reflected by the “21‑” prefix in the circuit court docket numbers) and then proceeded through the Michigan Court of Appeals before reaching the Supreme Court via applications and cross-applications for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court docket numbers span a broad range—Nos. 169268–169299 and 169304—indicating a large and complex cluster of related appeals.

The order itself performs one limited but practically important task: it grants motions by two plaintiffs (Jerome Dubrulle and Joseph Achtabowski) to extend the time to file their answers to several applications and cross-applications for leave to appeal. It sets new deadlines in January 2026 for those responsive filings.

Because this is a scheduling and case-management order, it does not announce a new substantive legal rule or precedent. Instead, it exemplifies the Michigan Supreme Court’s discretionary authority, under the Michigan Court Rules and its inherent powers, to manage time limits and briefing in complex litigation.

II. Overview of the Litigation and Parties

A. Parties and General Nature of the Dispute

Across the numerous captions in the order, the following broad categories of parties appear:

• Plaintiffs: Hundreds of individual homeowners, tenants, and business entities (e.g., Chas Verheyden, Inc., MB Salon, LLC, Brian Evans Transmission, Inc.) who allege harm related to the operation of regional water, sewerage, and sanitary systems.
• Primary regional utility defendant: The Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA), a major regional water and wastewater authority serving Detroit and surrounding communities.
• Municipal defendants: The City of Detroit, the Detroit Water & Sewerage Department (DWSD), and several Grosse Pointe municipalities (City of Grosse Pointe, City of Grosse Pointe Park, City of Grosse Pointe Farms, City of Grosse Pointe Woods, City of Grosse Pointe Shores), as well as the City of Harper Woods.
• Sanitary district defendant: The Southeast Macomb Sanitary District (SMSD).
• Fictitious defendants: “John Does 1–10,” indicating that additional, as-yet unidentified entities or individuals may be alleged to have some responsibility.

The captions alone do not describe the underlying facts. However, given the identity of the defendants (regional water and sewer authorities, municipalities, a sanitary district), the Wayne County forum, and the volume of residential and commercial plaintiffs, the litigation evidently arises out of alleged failures or malfunctions in water/sewer infrastructure that allegedly caused damage to persons and property (often, in similar Michigan litigation, through sewer backups or flooding). The specific factual and legal theories—including any reliance on the “sewage disposal system event” exception to governmental immunity under Michigan’s Governmental Tort Liability Act—are not discussed in this particular order.

B. Procedural Posture

Each caption lists three layers of docket numbers:

• Michigan Supreme Court docket numbers (e.g., SC: 169268, 169269, etc.) – indicating the individual appeals or applications now before the Supreme Court.
• Court of Appeals docket numbers (e.g., COA: 365363, 367529–538) – reflecting prior appellate proceedings in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
• Wayne County Circuit Court docket numbers (e.g., Wayne CC: 21-014057-NZ, 21-014161-NZ, 21-008745-CZ, etc.) – the original trial court cases filed in 2021.

The designations “Plaintiffs-Appellees,” “Plaintiffs-Appellants,” “Defendant-Appellant,” and “Defendants-Appellants” show that, by the time the cases reached the Supreme Court:

• In many appeals, governmental defendants are appellants, seeking to overturn or modify adverse lower-court decisions (for example, denials of governmental immunity or rulings allowing particular claims to proceed).
• In some appeals, plaintiffs are appellants, indicating they too lost at least some issues in the Court of Appeals and are asking the Supreme Court for further review.

Against this background, the order addresses a narrow procedural question: whether certain plaintiffs (who are appellees in the Supreme Court) may have more time to file their answers (responses) to the governmental defendants’ applications and cross-applications for leave to appeal.

III. Summary of the Order

A. Relief Granted

The operative text of the order begins near the end of the document:

On order of the Chief Justice, the motions of plaintiff-appellee Jerome Dubrelle to extend the time for filing his answer to the applications for leave to appeal of the Great Lakes Water Authority; of the City of Detroit; of the City of Grosse Pointe, the City of Grosse Pointe Park, and the City of Grosse Pointe Woods; and of Southeast Macomb Sanitary District are GRANTED. The answers will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before January 8, 2026. The motion of plaintiff-appellee Jermone Dubrelle 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 is also GRANTED. That answer will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before January 16, 2026.

In the next paragraph, the Chief Justice grants similar relief to another plaintiff:

On further order of the Chief Justice, the motions of plaintiff-appellee Joseph Achtabowski to extend the time for filing his answer to the applications for leave to appeal of the Great Lakes Water Authority; of the City of Detroit; and of the City of Grosse Pointe, the City of Grosse Pointe Park, and the City of Grosse Pointe Woods are GRANTED. The answers will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before January 8, 2026.

B. Scope

Thus, in essence, the order:

• Grants Jerome Dubrulle’s motions to extend the deadlines for his answers to:
  • GLWA’s application for leave to appeal;
  • The City of Detroit’s application;
  • The joint application of the City of Grosse Pointe, City of Grosse Pointe Park, and City of Grosse Pointe Woods;
  • Southeast Macomb Sanitary District’s application;
  • And separately, the cross-application of the City of Grosse Pointe Farms and City of Harper Woods.
• Sets new outer deadlines:
  • January 8, 2026 – for Dubrulle’s answers to the above applications; and for Achtabowski’s answers to the applications of GLWA, the City of Detroit, and the grouping of the three Grosse Pointe cities (Grosse Pointe, Grosse Pointe Park, and Grosse Pointe Woods).
  • January 16, 2026 – for Dubrulle’s answer to the cross-application of the City of Grosse Pointe Farms and the City of Harper Woods.
• Preserves the right of these plaintiff-appellees to file timely answers by deeming any answers filed by those dates “accepted as timely filed.”

The order does not:

• Rule on the merits of any underlying tort or statutory claims.
• Address governmental immunity, liability standards, or damages.
• Grant or deny any application or cross-application for leave to appeal.
• Announce any new construction of statutes or court rules.

It is, in short, a targeted case-management directive regarding appellate briefing schedules.

IV. Legal Analysis

A. Precedents and Authorities Implicitly Involved

This order does not cite any cases or statutes, and it contains no explicit discussion of precedent. Nonetheless, it operates against the background of several established sources of law:

1. Michigan Court Rules governing Supreme Court practice. The Michigan Court Rules set default time limits for:
   • Filing an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals;
   • Filing an answer (response) to such an application;
   • Filing a cross-application for leave to appeal (when the opposing party also seeks review); and
   • The Court’s authority to extend or suspend deadlines “for good cause” or for the efficient administration of justice.
   While the specific rule numbers are not referenced in the order, the Court’s ability to enlarge time derives from these procedural rules and the Court’s inherent authority.
2. The Supreme Court’s inherent power to manage its docket. Even apart from the detailed rules, appellate courts have inherent authority to control their dockets, manage briefing schedules, and ensure that parties have a fair opportunity to be heard, especially in complex or multi-party litigation. This authority underlies the Chief Justice’s ability to rule on routine procedural motions such as motions for extension of time.
3. Michigan governmental liability and infrastructure litigation precedents (contextual, not cited). The underlying cases likely implicate a web of decisions interpreting:
   • Michigan’s Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA);
   • The “sewage disposal system event” (SDSE) exception to immunity;
   • Standards of proof for causation, “defect,” “appropriate corrective action,” and notice in SDSE cases; and
   • Class certification and joinder doctrines in large multiplaintiff infrastructure cases.
   Although the order does not address them, these bodies of law explain why so many governmental entities are parties and why the appellate issues are likely complex and significant.

Because the order is purely procedural and case-specific, it does not create new precedent in any of these areas. It simply applies existing procedural authority to the facts of the current appellate stage.

B. Legal Reasoning (Express and Implied)

The order is succinct and contains no articulated reasoning beyond the granting of the motions. However, certain legal inferences can be drawn from what the Court did.

1. Good Cause and Reasonableness

Under standard appellate practice, a motion to extend time to file an answer must show good cause—for example:

• The complexity and volume of the record;
• The number of parties and overlapping applications;
• Scheduling or logistical constraints of counsel; or
• Need for coordinated responses to avoid inconsistent positions across related appeals.

Although the order does not recite a “good cause” finding, the fact that the motions are granted implies that:

• The Chief Justice was satisfied that the movants (Dubrulle and Achtabowski) demonstrated sufficient justification for enlargement of time under the Court Rules;
• The requested extensions were reasonable in length, extending deadlines into early and mid‑January 2026, but not indefinitely.

2. Coordination of Multiple Related Appeals

The captions show that dozens of closely related appeals are pending, all stemming from substantially similar underlying events and involving overlapping parties and municipalities. That context suggests several reasons for synchronization of deadlines:

• Consistency of arguments: Plaintiffs may wish to craft answers that are consistent across related cases, particularly where similar factual narratives, statutory provisions, or defenses (like governmental immunity) are raised.
• Judicial efficiency: The Court benefits from receiving well-organized, coherent responses that help it understand both the common questions and any case-specific divergences.
• Fairness to appellees: Plaintiffs must respond to multiple applications from:
  • GLWA;
  • The City of Detroit;
  • Groups of Grosse Pointe municipalities;
  • Harper Woods;
  • Southeast Macomb Sanitary District;
  • and, in some cases, to cross-applications by other municipalities.
  Consolidated or extended deadlines help avoid a situation where appellees are subject to unrealistic, staggered filing requirements that are practically impossible to meet.

Granting extensions to key plaintiffs like Dubrulle and Achtabowski therefore can be understood as a means of facilitating orderly and thorough briefing in a highly complex appellate cluster.

3. Distinguishing Applications and Cross-Applications

The order makes a careful procedural distinction between:

• “Applications for leave to appeal” filed by GLWA, Detroit, groups of Grosse Pointe cities, and SMSD; and
• A “cross-application for leave to appeal” filed by the City of Grosse Pointe Farms and the City of Harper Woods.

This distinction matters because:

• A cross-application typically has a different clock: it is filed in response to an initial application by the opposing party and allows the responding party to raise its own issues for review.
• The Court might treat the deadlines for answers to initial applications and answers to cross-applications separately, as reflected by:
  • January 8, 2026 for answers to the applications;
  • January 16, 2026 for the answer to the cross-application.

By establishing a later deadline for Dubrulle’s answer to the cross-application, the Court recognizes the layered nature of the appellate pleadings.

4. Role of the Chief Justice

The order begins with “On order of the Chief Justice,” signaling that this is a single-justice administrative act rather than a full-court merits opinion. Under Michigan practice:

• Certain routine or procedural motions (e.g., to extend time, correct captions, or consolidate cases) may be decided by a single justice, often the Chief Justice.
• Decisions on whether to grant leave to appeal, issue substantive opinions, or resolve major legal questions are typically reserved for the full Court.

Accordingly, this order:

• Does not bind future cases as precedent on the merits of any legal issue;
• Does illustrate how the Chief Justice exercises delegated authority to keep complex litigation moving efficiently on the Court’s docket.

C. Impact of the Order

1. Immediate Practical Impact

For the parties, the immediate consequences are:

• Dubrulle and Achtabowski avoid default or prejudice that might arise from missing original answer deadlines.
• Their answers—if filed by the new dates—will be treated as “timely filed” and fully considered when the Court decides whether to grant or deny the applications and cross-applications for leave to appeal.
• The governmental appellants (GLWA, Detroit, the Grosse Pointe municipalities, SMSD, etc.) must wait somewhat longer for full briefing, but they gain the benefit of more considered, comprehensive responses.

In high-stakes, multiplaintiff litigation, the completeness and quality of briefing at the leave-to-appeal stage can significantly influence:

• Whether the Court grants leave at all;
• Which issues the Court chooses to accept for review; and
• How the Court frames the legal questions in any subsequent opinion.

2. Systemic and Doctrinal Impact

This order, on its face, has no precedential or doctrinal impact beyond the immediate parties. It:

• Does not announce a new standard for granting extensions; it simply applies existing law.
• Does not modify the default time limits written into the Michigan Court Rules.
• Does not interpret or alter the substantive doctrines likely involved in the underlying suits (e.g., governmental immunity, sewage disposal system liability, negligence standards).

Nonetheless, the order is instructive on:

• The Court’s willingness to accommodate complexity. The Supreme Court is evidently treating this litigation as sizable and intricate enough to justify deadline extensions, rather than insisting on strictly rigid compliance with default time limits.
• The seriousness with which the Court regards the appeals. Allowing more time for thoughtful responses suggests the Court anticipates that these applications and cross-applications may raise issues of some significance for Michigan law—potentially including the scope of governmental immunity and municipal responsibility for infrastructure failures.

3. Implications for Future Litigants

While not binding precedent, this order provides practical guidance:

• Well-founded motions for extension of time are viable. In highly complex, multi-party appeals, especially where multiple applications and cross-applications are pending, parties can reasonably seek—and may obtain—extensions.
• Specificity matters. The order is quite particular in identifying:
  • Which party’s answers are at issue (Dubrulle; Achtabowski);
  • Which applications and cross-applications are covered (those filed by GLWA, Detroit, specific groupings of Grosse Pointe cities, SMSD, and certain suburbs);
  • The exact new dates by which filings will be deemed timely.
  This underscores the importance of tailoring motions to specific docketed appeals rather than making vague, generalized requests.
• Extensions do not delay the Court indefinitely. The deadlines remain relatively near-term; the Court balances fairness to appellees with the need to avoid open-ended delays in resolving appeals of public importance.

V. Complex Concepts Simplified

A. Application for Leave to Appeal vs. Appeal by Right

• Appeal by right means a party has an automatic right to have the Court of Appeals hear its case after certain types of trial-court decisions.
• Application for leave to appeal means the party is asking the higher court (here, the Supreme Court) for permission to appeal. The Supreme Court selects only some cases for full review.

In these matters, the governmental defendants and some plaintiffs are at the Supreme Court on an application-for-leave basis. The Court has discretion to:

• Grant leave (and later issue an opinion on the merits);
• Deny leave (leaving the Court of Appeals’ decision in place); or
• Issue other orders as it sees fit.

B. Cross-Application for Leave to Appeal

A cross-application is a request for leave to appeal filed by the party opposing an initial application, typically after the first application has been filed:

• For example, if a municipality files an application challenging adverse rulings, the plaintiffs might file a cross-application if they also believe certain rulings in the Court of Appeals or trial court were incorrect.
• Each side can, therefore, ask the Supreme Court to review different aspects of the lower courts’ decisions.

The order references a cross-application filed by the City of Grosse Pointe Farms and the City of Harper Woods and grants Dubrulle more time specifically to answer that cross-application.

C. Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Defendant-Appellant

• Plaintiff-Appellee: A party who started the case in the trial court as a plaintiff and who, in the Supreme Court, is defending the lower court’s decision against an appeal.
• Defendant-Appellant: A party who was a defendant in the trial court and is now appealing, asking the higher court to reverse or modify a lower-court decision.

In many of these cases:

• The plaintiffs are appellees because they prevailed on some issue below (for example, perhaps defeating a motion for summary disposition based on governmental immunity).
• The governmental entities are appellants, seeking to overturn those rulings.

D. Consolidated or Related Appeals

The long set of captions, listing dozens of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals case numbers, shows that:

• Multiple parallel lawsuits were filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court, often with overlapping defendants and similar factual allegations;
• Those cases generated multiple separate appeals to the Court of Appeals, each with its own docket number;
• Now, at the Supreme Court level, those cases have resulted in a large cluster of related applications and cross-applications, each with its own Supreme Court docket number.

Although the order does not formally state that the cases are “consolidated,” the joint treatment of multiple docket numbers and parties in a single order reflects a coordinated approach typical of consolidated or closely related appellate proceedings.

E. Clerk’s Certification

The final lines of the document state:

I, Elizabeth Kingston-Miller, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. December 12, 2025.

This is a standard administrative certification:

• It confirms that what is reproduced is an accurate copy of the Court’s order.
• It is not itself part of the Court’s substantive ruling.
• It ensures that the document can be relied upon in other proceedings as an authentic record of the Court’s action.

VI. Conclusion

The December 12, 2025 order in Jerome Dubrulle v. Great Lakes Water Authority and its numerous companion cases is a procedural scheduling order, not a substantive opinion. It grants motions by two plaintiffs-appellees, Jerome Dubrulle and Joseph Achtabowski, to extend their deadlines to answer several applications and a cross-application for leave to appeal filed by GLWA, the City of Detroit, various Grosse Pointe municipalities, Harper Woods, and Southeast Macomb Sanitary District. The order sets new answer deadlines of January 8, 2026 and January 16, 2026 and declares that answers filed by those dates will be treated as timely.

While the order does not resolve any of the underlying legal issues—such as governmental immunity, municipal liability for infrastructure failures, or the standards governing large-scale multiplaintiff tort claims—it provides insight into:

• The Michigan Supreme Court’s discretionary authority to extend filing deadlines under the Court Rules and its inherent powers;
• The complexity and scale of the underlying litigation, given the sheer number of plaintiffs, governmental defendants, and related dockets;
• The Court’s interest in ensuring that parties have a fair opportunity to present complete, coordinated answers to multiple overlapping applications and cross-applications for leave to appeal.

For practitioners and litigants, the key takeaway is that, in complex, multi-party appeals, properly supported motions for extension of time are an accepted and sometimes necessary tool to ensure thorough briefing, provided they are narrowly tailored and do not unduly delay the proceedings. Substantive developments in Michigan law emerging from this litigation—if and when the Supreme Court issues merits decisions on the applications and cross-applications—will be found in subsequent orders or opinions, not in this particular procedural directive.