Michigan Court Of Appeals Holds That Only An Accepted E-Filing Tolls The Statute Of Limitations
Opinion Published: February 25, 2026 (Cameron, P.J., and M. J. Kelly and Young, JJ.)
Docket No: 371827
Wayne County Circuit Court
Holding: When an electronically filed complaint is rejected by the clerk for a defect, the operative filing date is the date the corrected, accepted complaint is submitted — not the original rejected submission.
Facts: George Goff, a Detroit Public Schools employee, sued defendants Detroit Public Schools Community District and several individuals under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) after allegedly being retaliated against for reporting a colleague's misconduct. On September 6, 2022, the plaintiff electronically filed his complaint. The clerk of the court rejected the filing on September 7, 2022, for failing to properly enter the parties’ names. The plaintiff corrected the defect and successfully filed his complaint later that same day.
One defendant sought summary disposition of Goff’s complaint because it was filed one-day after the 90 day statute of limitations expired on September 6, 2022. The trial court agreed, conclusion that the filing on September 6, 2022 was after the clerk’s office closed at 4:30 p.m. and therefore was not timely.
On review, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling but on different grounds. While the September 6 filing was permitted after the clerk’s office closing hours under MCR 1.109(G)(5)(b), in this instance, the complaint was rejected the following day. Therefore, it was not accepted by the clerk and was not made part of the court record. MCR 1.109(G)(5)(a)(iii) and (b). The defect-free complaint was filed and accepted on September 7, 2022, which was one day beyond the 90-day statutory period. The trial court was wrong to treat the 4:30 p.m. closing time as a cutoff. However, the dismissal was affirmed anyway because Goff's corrected complaint was filed September 7 — one day past the deadline — and could not relate back to the rejected September 6 filing.
Key Appellate Rulings:
A complaint does not toll the statute of limitations until it is accepted by the clerk’s office, even if e-filed. Further, a corrected complaint does not relate back to the original defective filing.
In her dissent on this issue only, Judge Young indicated that she would have held that the court rule defines "filed" as the moment transmission is completed and fees are paid — not when the clerk accepts the document. The phrase "regardless of the date a filing is accepted" signals that acceptance is irrelevant to the filing date. Judge Young found the majority's reading conflates "filed" with "accepted," two distinct concepts under the rule.
Other defendants sought dismissal based on the lack of a causal connection between the alleged protected activity and the adverse employment action. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that Goff could not establish a causal connection in light of the legitimate reasons offered by the defendants for their adverse actions. Goff only argued that the reasons must be pretextual “given the time line of events” but offered no evidence to challenge that the proffered reasons were lacking a factual basis. Further, Goff's argument that he was "uniquely qualified" for positions he was denied was abandoned on appeal because he failed to identify the positions or support the claim with any argument or evidence.
Goff's sole pretext argument — that adverse actions followed closely in time after his report — was legally insufficient. Temporal proximity alone does not establish a causal connection and will not survive summary disposition.
