Vandeveer Garzia - Attorneys and Counselors - Servicing the Troy and Metro Detroit Area
April N. Malak

April N. Malak

Associate

Phone: (248) 312-2800
Direct Phone: (248) 312-2967
Fax: (248) 879-0042
Email: amalak@vgpclaw.com

 Download VCard

 Download Bio

APRIL N. MALAK is an Associate Attorney at Vandeveer Garzia and focuses her practice on civil litigation matters including complex first-party automotive claims, third-party bodily injury claims, premises liability and general negligence. April also has no-fault trial experience in both circuit court and district court. While attending law school, April became a certified civil mediator and participated in externships focused on complex commercial defense. April has consulted with section 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations focusing on domestic violence aid, juvenile law, and animal advocacy.


Education

Oakland University, B. S., with honors, General Management, 2006

Thomas M. Cooley Law School, J.D. 2010


LICENSES

State Bar of Michigan 2011

United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan 2013


MEMBERSHIPS

State Bar of Michigan


RECENT SUCCESSES AND NEWSWORTHY EVENTS


NOVEMBER 21, 2018

Dismissal granted on BI claim

Saar v. Johns

Nico Vesprini and April Malak were granted summary disposition in Oakland County Circuit Court on Plaintiff’s claim for damages stemming from an automobile accident. Defendant alleged the accident was minor in nature, occurring while both parties were in line for gas at a gas station. Plaintiff alleged injuries including those to his neck and shoulder, and also alleged dizziness and lack of concentration, that in turn affected his ability to lead his normal life. During the course of discovery, Defendant obtained medical records and conducted surveillance on Plaintiff. Defendant argued the medical records failed to support an objective injury to the extent claimed by Plaintiff. Further, Defendant obtained surveillance of Plaintiff, which showed Plaintiff participating in hours-long bike rides, and doing outdoor chores, in addition to other activities. In turn, Defendant argued Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the “serious impairment” threshold. The Court agreed and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims.