Judge allows renewed motion on legal standard in Kameter v. University of Michigan, asks parties to set briefing schedule

The presiding judge in a pretrial conference for Kameter v. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan told counsel she would allow a renewed motion for summary disposition limited to the applicable legal standard and directed the parties to confer and submit a stipulated briefing schedule.

The dispute centers on whether the case should be treated as a breach-of-contract claim governed by ordinary contract principles or as a limited-review proceeding where a claims administrator’s decision is overturned only if it is arbitrary and capricious. Defense counsel Daniel Tockel told the court the parties were "fairly far apart" after an earlier facilitation and said a prior motion for summary disposition had been denied by Judge Shapiro. "We believe using the wrong standard of reviews, so that's 1 of the things I think has to be...revisited before trial," Tockel said.

Plaintiff counsel (identified in the record as Robert) said he views the matter primarily as a contract case and expressed concern about the cost of proceeding to a full trial while the standard-of-review question remains unresolved. "I would rather have him appeal now and see if, you know, see what happens rather than spending the money on doctor's depositions galore and things like that for trial," Robert said.

The judge said resolving the standard-of-review issue before a full trial was important and offered two paths: a delayed interlocutory appeal to the court of appeals while the case remains stayed, or permission to file a renewed motion for summary disposition on the legal standard. The judge cautioned she would be "very reluctant to go be going back into [Judge Shapiro's] order and changing it, just because I don't want there to be a perception that with a new judge, there's a new ruling."

Counsel indicated a preference for filing a renewed motion before the presiding judge. The judge asked the parties to confer and propose a stipulated schedule for briefing; defense counsel requested roughly 45 days to prepare. The judge said she would likely sign a reasonable stipulated order and asked only that the motion not be filed years later.

No trial date was set during the conference. The court left the next formal step to the parties: file a renewed motion focused on the applicable legal standard and submit an agreed briefing schedule.