TEDDY 23, LLC and MICHIGAN TAX CREDIT FINANCE, LLC d/b/a MICHIGAN PRODUCTION CAPITAL, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
MICHIGAN FILM OFFICE and DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendants-Appellees. COA 323299, COA 323424
CC: 14-000702-AA Court of Claims: 14-000039-MT
Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice Robert P. Young, Jr. Brian
K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H.
Bernstein Joan L. Larsen, Justices
March 8, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on the
application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2015
judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the
application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we
are not persuaded that the questions presented should be
reviewed by this Court.
respectfully dissent from the order denying leave to appeal.
I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because
I believe the plain text of MCL 600.6419(1) clearly vested
the Court of Claims with exclusive jurisdiction over
are a film production company and a financer of that company
who sought a film tax credit pursuant to the now-repealed MCL
208.1455. Defendant Michigan Film Office (MFO) denied
plaintiffs' request for a postproduction certificate of
completion-a prerequisite for receiving a film tax credit.
filed a complaint in the Court of Claims against MFO and the
Department of Treasury, the department in which MFO was
located at the time of the dispute. Plaintiffs asked the court to overturn the
denial, to require that defendants issue the requested tax
credit, and to award plaintiffs compensatory damages of $3
million. Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR
2.116(C)(4), arguing that the Court of Claims lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over the claim because the circuit court
had exclusive jurisdiction over this appeal from an
administrative agency decision. In response to
defendants' motions for summary disposition, plaintiffs
filed a delayed application for leave to appeal in the Ingham
Circuit Court on June 10, 2014. The circuit court denied
plaintiffs' delayed application on June 17,
2014. On July 29, 2014, the circuit
court denied by order plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the denial.
Court of Claims granted summary disposition to defendants on
August 8, 2014, under MCR 2.116(C)(4), concluding that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim pursuant to
MCL 600.6419(5) and MCL 600.631. The Court of Appeals
affirmed, holding that the Court of Claims did not have
subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs'
appeal. Although the analysis in the
Court of Appeals opinion is sparse, the Court of Appeals
apparently believed that, notwithstanding the plain language
of MCL 600.6419(1)(a) vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the
Court of Claims over claims and demands against the state and
its departments, the Court of Claims could have jurisdiction
over plaintiffs' claim only if some other
statute conferred it with jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals committed a
significant error of statutory interpretation when it ignored
the jurisdictional grant contained in MCL 600.6419(1)(a), and
I would take up this case to correct this error.
jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is delineated in MCL
(1) Except as provided in sections 6421 and 6440,
[ the jurisdiction of the court of
claims, as conferred upon it by this chapter, is exclusive. .
. . Except as otherwise provided in this section, the court
has the following power and jurisdiction:
(a) To hear and determine any claim or demand, statutory or
constitutional, liquidated or unliquidated, ex contractu or
ex delicto, or any demand for monetary, equitable, or
declaratory relief or any demand for an extraordinary writ
against the state or any of its departments or officers
notwithstanding another law that confers jurisdiction of the
case in the circuit court.
* * *
(5) This chapter does not deprive the circuit court of
exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the district court
and administrative agencies as authorized by law.
MCL 600.6419(1)(a) gives the Court of Claims exclusive
jurisdiction over "any demand for monetary, equitable,
or declaratory relief . . . against the state or any of its
departments or officers." Plaintiffs' complaint
asked the Court of Claims to overturn the MFO's decision,
to order that the Department of Treasury issue the tax
credit, and to award plaintiffs $3 million in compensatory
damages. Plaintiffs' complaint thus demanded monetary and
equitable relief from state agencies. Therefore, MCL ...