MCR 8.111 Assignment of Cases (A) Application. The rule applies to all courts defined in subrule 8.110(A).

(B) Assignment. All cases must be assigned by lot, unless a different system has been adopted by local court administrative order under the provisions of subrule 8.112. Assignment will occur at the time the case is filed or before a contested hearing or uncontested dispositional hearing in the case, as the chief judge directs. Civil actions must be assigned within appropriate categories determined by the chief judge. The chief judge may receive fewer assignments in order to perform the duties of chief judge. (C) Reassignment. If a judge is disqualified or for other good cause cannot undertake an assigned case, the chief judge may reassign it to another judge by a written order stating the reason. To the extent feasible, the alternate judge should be selected by lot. The chief judge shall file the order with the trial court clerk and have the clerk notify the attorneys of record. The chief judge may also designate a judge to act temporarily until a case is reassigned or during a temporary absence of a judge to whom a case has been assigned. (D) Actions Arising out of Same Transaction or Occurrence. Subject to subrule 8.110(C), (1) if one of two or more actions arising out of the same transaction or occurrence has been assigned to a judge, the other action or actions must be assigned to that judge; (2) if an action arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as a civil action previously dismissed or transferred, the action must be assigned to the judge to whom the earlier action was assigned; (3) the attorney for the party bringing the other action under subrule (1) or the new action under subrule (2) shall notify the clerk of the fact in writing in the manner prescribed in MCR 2.113(C)(2). An attorney who knowingly fails to do so is subject to disciplinary action. (4) The chief judge may reassign cases, other than those encompassed by subrule 8.111(D)(1), in order to correct docket control problems resulting from the requirements of this rule. History 8.111(D) Am. eff. July 1, 1989; Apr 1, 1998 Note
MCR 8.111 is substantially the same as GCR 1963, 926. Subrule (D)(2) adds an additional circumstance in which an action must be assigned to the judge to whom a previous action involving the same subject matter had been assignedwhen the previous action has been transferred to another court. The July 1, 1989 amendment to MCR 8.111 authorizes the chief judge to reassign cases where necessary to correct any workload imbalance resulting from the Rules requirements. The March 24, 1998, amendments of MCR 2.109, 2.111, 2.112, 2.119, 8.103, 8.106, 8.110, 8.111, 9.114, and 9.203, effective April 1, 1998, make technical changes necessary in light of statutory amendments and correct crossreferences. Some published versions of the rules already include several of these corrections.

Annotations 1. Actions arising out of the same transaction or occurrence 2. Assignment of certain kinds of cases to one judge 3. Overruling another judges order 4. Prejudice 5. Purpose of reassignment 6. Reassigning future criminal cases to same judge 7. Substitution of judges 8. Timing of reassignment 1. Actions arising out of the same transaction or occurrence
National Waterworks, Inc v International Fid & Sur, Ltd, 275 Mich App 256, 739 NW2d 121 (2007). Action by general contractor against township seeking payment for construction project and action by subcontractor seeking payment from surety company arose from same transaction or occurrence. Harbor Tel 2103, LLC v Oakland County Bd of Commrs, 253 Mich App 40, 654 NW2d 633 (2002). In case to detach land parcel that intervening plaintiff had annexed, trial court properly declined to transfer detachment action to judge entertaining prior cases of property annexation because cases arose from different transactions or occurrences. Wayne County Prosecutor v Parole Bd, 210 Mich App 148, 532 NW2d 899 (1995). Where second case arising out of parole proceedings was assigned to same judge who presided over first case, both actions arose out of parole proceedings attendant to defendants incarceration. Therefore, suits arose out of same transaction and involved same legal issues, and both cases were properly assigned to same judge. Collier v Westland Arena, Inc, 183 Mich App 251, 454 NW2d 138 (1990). MCR 8.111(D) provides that, subject to duties of chief judge listed in MCR 8.110(E)(2), if action arises out of same transaction or occurrence as civil action previously dismissed or transferred, action must be assigned to same judge.

2. Assignment of certain kinds of cases to one judge

Pickering v Pickering, 253 Mich App 694, 659 NW2d 649 (2002), on appeal, 268 Mich App 1, 706 NW2d 835 (2005). If divorce or custody proceeding already exists when party files personal protection order, court will assign protection order to judge presiding over custody or divorce proceeding because judge should have sufficient knowledge of parties circumstances to determine whether petitioner is inappropriately seeking tactical advantage through personal protection order. In this divorce suit, trial court did not err in denying defendants motion to rescind personal protection order because court had reasonable cause to believe that defendant engaged in conduct causing plaintiffwife reasonable apprehension of violence. Derrick v City of Detroit, 168 Mich App 560, 425 NW2d 154 (1988). Wayne Circuit Court administrative order authorizing one judge to hear all forfeiture cases is permissible delegation of judicial power. Chief judge may assign all forfeiture cases to one judge.

3. Overruling another judges order

People v Watkins, 178 Mich App 439, 444 NW2d 201 (1989), revd on other grounds, 438 Mich 627, 475 NW2d 727 (1991), cert denied, 502 US 1057, habeas corpus denied sub nomMiller v Miller, 784 F Supp 390 (ED Mich), affd without opinion, 983 F2d 1067 (6th Cir 1992), cert denied, 507 US 1000 (1993). Chief judge of Detroit Recorders Court has authority to reassign criminal cases. Once case is transferred, new judge may overrule order of other judge ( MCR 2.613(B)).

4. Prejudice
National Waterworks, Inc v International Fid & Sur, Ltd, 275 Mich App 256, 739 NW2d 121 (2007). Party opposing reassignment is required to show prejudice as result of improper assignment.

5. Purpose of reassignment
Schell v Baker Furniture Co, 232 Mich App 470, 591 NW2d 349 (1998), affd, 461 Mich 502, 607 NW2d 358 (2000). Chief judge of trial court may reassign cases to correct docket to control problems resulting from requirements of assignments under MCR 8.111. There is no authority for chief judge to temporarily reassign cases to himself for sole purpose of conducting settlement conferences. Where in establishing settlement week, chief judge of trial court reassigned cases to himself and entered substantive orders as to those cases, such reassignments and orders were improper.

6. Reassigning future criminal cases to same judge

People v Rich, 172 Mich App 494, 432 NW2d 352 (1988). Circuit courts policy of reassigning all future criminal cases of individual to trial judge who presided over individuals initial criminal case does not violate MCR 8.111, which permits local courts to adopt their own systems for assignment of cases. Policy does not by itself bias or prejudice individual.

7. Substitution of judges
People v McCline, 442 Mich 127, 499 NW2d 341 (1993). Defendant was not prejudiced by substitution of new judge in criminal case when substitution occurred after jury selection but before opening statements and testimony, and when defendant did not demonstrate unfairness resulting from substitution. Generally, substituted judges are not familiar with prior testimony or evidence and are not in position to give accused fair and impartial trial. Examination of jurors under voir dire, however, does not elicit any information that can be used in trial of case, so selection of jury can be properly achieved by different judge than judge trying case without affecting partiality. People v Montrose, 201 Mich App 378, 506 NW2d 565 (1993). MCR 8.111(C) does not preclude substitution of different judge from original trial judge for postconviction motions. Court rule governs assignment of cases and is intended to prevent judge-shopping, to avoid appearance of impropriety, and to equally distribute court workload among judges. Neither this court rule nor any other requires postconviction motions to be heard by convicting judge.

8. Timing of reassignment
National Waterworks, Inc v International Fid & Sur, Ltd, 275 Mich App 256, 739 NW2d 121 (2007). MCR 8.111 does not provide time limit for reassigning action; no abuse of discretion to order reassignment after case pending for more than six months.