Yvette M Cormier v. Pf Fitness-Midland LLC , 501 Mich. 1046 ( 2018 )

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
April 6, 2018 Stephen J. Markman,
Chief Justice
Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
156116 David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein
Kurtis T. Wilder
YVETTE M. CORMIER, Elizabeth T. Clement,
Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices
v SC: 156116
COA: 331286
Midland CC: 15-002463-NZ
PF FITNESS-MIDLAND, LLC, and
PLA-FIT FRANCHISE, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
PLANET FITNESS HOLDINGS, LLC,
PLANET FITNESS EQUIPMENT, LLC,
PLANET FITNESS NAF, LLC, PFIP, LLC,
and TSG CONSUMER PARTNERS, LLC,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 1, 2017
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in
lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment
concluding that the plaintiff had abandoned her claims under the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act (MCPA), MCL 445.901 et seq. The plaintiff attached her complaint to her
brief, cited the governing statute, MCL 445.901 et seq., and provided a two-page
discussion of her theory supporting her claims. Thus, the plaintiff did not simply
announce her position and leave it to the court to rationalize her basis, nor did she require
the court to search for authority either to sustain or reject her position in this statutory
cause of action. Cf. Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich. 232, 243 (1998), quoting Mitcham v
Detroit, 355 Mich. 182, 203 (1959). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals erred in declining
to consider the plaintiff’s MCPA claims. Therefore, we REMAND this case to that court
for consideration of the trial court’s grant of summary disposition on those claims. See
Brownlow v McCall Enterprises, Inc, 315 Mich. App. 103 (2016).
2
In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded
that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
April 6, 2018
a0403
Clerk