Procedural Precedent: Michigan Supreme Court Confirms Discretion to Grant Second Extensions and Deem Late Answers Timely if Filed by a Court-Set Date

1. Introduction

This Michigan Supreme Court order arises from a large set of related sewer/water-system litigation matters involving numerous plaintiffs and multiple municipal and public-utility defendants, including the Great Lakes Water Authority, the City of Detroit, several Grosse Pointe-area cities, and the Southeast Macomb Sanitary District. The procedural posture is appellate: multiple defendants filed applications for leave to appeal, and plaintiff-appellee Jerome Dubrelle sought more time to file his answers to those applications.

The key issue presented to the Court was narrow and procedural: whether to grant a second motion by plaintiff-appellee Dubrelle to extend the deadline to respond to the pending applications for leave to appeal, and under what condition(s) the Court would treat a later-filed answer as timely.

2. Summary of the Opinion (Order)

The order does not resolve the merits of any underlying claim or the applications for leave themselves; it addresses only the filing timetable for responsive briefing.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

No precedents or prior cases are cited in the order. The Court issued a short procedural directive without invoking specific case authority or quoting Michigan Court Rules in the text provided.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

Although the order is brief, its structure reflects standard appellate case-management principles:

• Discretionary docket control: By granting an extension—particularly a second extension—the Court signaled that it will permit additional time where warranted to ensure complete briefing before deciding whether to grant leave.
• Final, enforceable deadline: The Court paired flexibility with certainty by specifying that the answers will be “accepted as timely filed” only if submitted by a defined date (January 22, 2026).
• Administrative delegation: The phrase “On order of the Chief Justice” indicates the order was entered through the Court’s internal administrative authority for motion practice, rather than through a full authored opinion of the Court.

In practical terms, the Court balanced (i) fairness to a responding party facing multiple leave applications with (ii) the need to avoid indefinite delay in deciding whether the Supreme Court will take the appeals.

3.3. Impact

The impact is primarily case-specific and procedural:

• For the parties: Plaintiff-appellee Dubrelle receives additional time to respond across multiple applications, likely improving the completeness of the record the Court reviews when determining whether to grant leave.
• For related consolidated matters: In multi-party litigation with parallel appeals, the Court’s use of a single firm deadline helps synchronize briefing schedules and reduce procedural fragmentation.
• For future litigants: While not a merits precedent, the order illustrates that the Michigan Supreme Court may grant even a second extension, but will commonly tether that relief to a clear, court-set cutoff after which “timely filing” treatment may not apply.

Because the order contains no doctrinal analysis, it is best understood as a procedural signal about the Court’s willingness to manage briefing timelines pragmatically—rather than as a substantive development in governmental liability, utility law, or tort damages.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Application for leave to appeal: A request asking the Michigan Supreme Court to take a case. Unlike some appeals taken “as of right,” the Court has discretion to accept or decline.
• Answer to an application: The opposing party’s written response explaining why the Supreme Court should deny (or sometimes grant) leave.
• Extension of time: Court permission to file a document after the ordinary deadline. A “second” motion means the party already received one extension and is requesting another.
• “Accepted as timely filed”: Even if the ordinary deadline has passed, the Court treats the filing as on-time if it is submitted by the new date set in the order.

5. Conclusion

The January 2, 2026 order in Jerome Dubrulle v. Great Lakes Water Authority is a focused exercise of appellate case-management authority. The Court granted plaintiff-appellee Dubrelle’s second requests for more time to answer multiple applications for leave to appeal and established a bright-line condition for timeliness: filing by January 22, 2026. The order does not address the merits, cite precedent, or announce a new substantive rule; its significance lies in reinforcing the Court’s discretionary control over briefing schedules while imposing a definitive deadline to keep the leave-to-appeal process moving.