SAJID M. ISLAM is an Associate Attorney practicing in the area of defense litigation, including First-Party Personal Protection Insurance, Third-Party automobile negligence, Property Protection Insurance, municipal, Real Property and other general negligence claims, and Insurance coverage and priority disputes. While in law school, Sajid served as a Senior Member of the Moot Court Board of Advocates, participated in the Patrick A. Keenan Appellate Advocacy Competition and the New York City Bar Association’s National Moot Court Competition, and earned several Book Awards. Sajid joined Vandeveer Garzia as a law clerk in May of 2015, and accepted an Associate Attorney position with the firm in October of 2017.
Oakland University, B. A., Psychology and Political Science, 2013
University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, cum laude, J.D., 2017
State Bar of Michigan 2017
United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan 2018
State Bar of Michigan
Vandeveer Garzia attorney obtains Partial Summary Disposition
Galloway v. Allstate
Sajid Islam obtained a partial dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s claim for attendant care benefits. Plaintiff alleged that he was receiving attendant care services from four care providers. To evaluate Plaintiff’s claim, Mr. Islam obtained an Order compelling Plaintiff to produce attendant care documents and more specific responses to his client’s Interrogatories regarding each of the care providers. After Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order, Mr. Islam filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claim for Attendant Care Benefits arguing that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order and that no attendant care documents or information had been provided with regard to the alleged care providers. In response to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff produced documents and discovery responses as to one of the care providers.
After hearing oral arguments on the Motion to Dismiss, the Court granted Plaintiff one additional week to produce documents and discovery responses relating to the remaining three alleged providers. The Court further held that if said documents and responses were not provided within one week, Plaintiff’s claim as to the remaining alleged providers would be dismissed with prejudice. After Plaintiff failed to produce documents and discovery responses, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s attendant care claim as to the remaining three alleged providers with prejudice.
Sajid Islam obtains a favorable result in a complex property dispute
Ikle v Fritts, et al
Sajid Islam obtained a favorable result arguing against a plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in a property dispute involving lot owners in a neighborhood. With respect to a park, waterfront and lake located within the neighborhood, the plaintiff was seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from erecting docks, mooring devices, or other semi-permanent or permanent structures; maintaining picnic tables; hosting large gatherings, parties, or bonfires; or driving or parking motor vehicles, golf carts or ATVs. Sajid and Co-Counsel argued that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any ownership of the park or any riparian rights with respect to the waterfront and lake. In addition, Sajid and Co-Counsel argued that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a likelihood to prevail on the merits or that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm without the entry of a preliminary injunction. It was also argued that the harm to the public interest was great because the plat dedication expressly stated that all lot owners could use the parks and canals in the neighborhood and the relief being requested by the plaintiff was contrary to that express intent. After extensive arguments, the court stated that it would not grant the plaintiff’s motion. However, in order to maintain the status quo until a final decision on the merits, the court entered an order preventing loud music or fireworks on the park area, and preventing the use of golf carts and ATVs on the park area in such a way as would disturb the peace.
Well-crafted Motion for Summary Disposition results in dismissal of lawsuit
Ames v Allstate Insurance Company
Sajid Islam obtained a dismissal with prejudice of Allstate Insurance Company in a lawsuit for First-Party No-Fault benefits. Sajid filed a Motion for Summary Disposition and a Supplemental Brief in Support of the Motion arguing that the plaintiff was not entitled to First-Party benefits from Allstate because she was not domiciled in the same household as her mother, the Allstate named insured, on the date of the accident at issue. Prior to the filing, Sajid obtained deposition testimony and admissions from the plaintiff and her mother indicating that the plaintiff did not reside with her mother or intend to live with her mother on the date of the accident. In addition, Sajid obtained testimony and admissions that the plaintiff did not have a bedroom or belongings at her mother’s home, and that the plaintiff was not financially dependent on her mother on the date of the accident. The plaintiff and opposing insurance company stipulated to the dismissal of Allstate with prejudice prior to the hearing on the Motion for Summary Disposition.