Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
July 17, 2009 Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice
138009-12 & (73)(75) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
LEASE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Diane M. Hathaway,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices
v SC: 138009
COA: 278716
Oakland CC: 2004-056034-CK
VINSON ABEL,
Defendant,
and
ANDREW ASMAN, JAMES HUMENIK,
ALAN B. THOMPSON, ARNOLD WILSON,
JOSE DUARTE, JUAN D. DUARTE, WARREN
G. JAFVERT, GREG MCCUE, MAI V. HOANG,
JEFF NAGY, TUAN V. VO, DAVID BRAMLET,
WILLIAM WILKINSON, and ELIZABETH
WILSON,
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________
LEASE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v SC: 138010
COA: 278717
Oakland CC: 2004-056036-CK
SCOTT ADAMS,
Defendant,
and
JAVIER ALCARAZ, JOSEPH P. AUBUCHON,
BRIAN AUBUCHON, CHRISTOPHER
BAILEY, DARLENE BALLEW, TRACIE L.
BALLEW, BEVERLY BARNAY, ADAM BOYD,
LEO DEMIRTSHIAN, SHAWN J. FARIA,
DUANE JOHNSON, JOA MADRUGA, MARLIN
2
BAERG, VADE A. BRADLEY, OWEN D.
CHAMBERLIN, RUDY ESPARZA, STEVE
LERCHE, RUTH MILLER, PHILLIP KNAUS,
and JAMES BAILEY,
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________
LEASE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v SC: 138011
COA: 278718
Oakland CC: 2004-056026-CK
HEATHER BAKKER,
Defendant,
and
MARC BELL, JAMES RAY FACKLER,
ANITA ROZZI, JAMES E. ROZZI, ENEAS O.
SOUZA, JONATHAN HAHN, TERRI LOOMIS,
DONOVAN MINNIS, DARRIN TALL,
SHERRI TALL, JAMES BENITT, JOHN
SPICER, JUSTIN MELLIOT, PETER VOLKOV,
JOY ANN PRANTER, LAWRENCE PRANTER,
SCOTT E. MINNIS, PETER R. MULLER,
MICHAEL MURRAY, RAY RANDA, and
LINDSEY M. JACKSON,
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________
LEASE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v SC: 138012
COA: 278719
Oakland CC: 2004-056035-CK
GEMBO BARBOSO,
Defendant,
and
JOSEPH A. CASTRO, SCOTT N. GALECH,
MARY MENDOZA, TEDROS MISGUN,
LYFORD MORRIS, MARILYN MORRIS,
WAN MOUA, LAURA NASATIR, KRISTINE
NELSON, CAROL PADILLA, RALPH
3
DARRYL PEREZ, GARY PERKINS, JESUS
G. PRIETO, OSCAR RAMOS, DANIEL
RANGEL, PAUL RAUCHFUSS, CHRISTEEN
REYES, JAMES R. REYES, RAY RIVIERA,
SHAWN SABO, DAVID SERRANO,
SHAWNEE SPRINGER GENER VALERIO,
JERRY WALBERT, ROBERT WILLIAMS, LI
PING WONG, BRICE YOUNG, CHARLES
ZOETEWEY, MANUEL SMITHERS, DAVIS
DENVER, III, HENRY P. MYLES, CHAD
MARTIN, DAN MICHAELIDES, HAMAYUN
ZAHEER, SCOTT RUFFIN, and ALFRED
YARINGTON,
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is
GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the November 20, 2008 judgment of the
Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting
leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE
the order of the Oakland Circuit Court dismissing the plaintiff’s consolidated actions with
prejudice relative to future litigation in Michigan between the parties concerning the
subject matter of the underlying lawsuit and without prejudice relative to future litigation
outside of Michigan. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that
Michigan was not “a reasonably convenient place for the trial of the action,” MCL
600.745(2)(b), when considering the factors supplied in Cray v General Motors Corp,
389 Mich 382, 395-396 (1973). See also Lease Acceptance Corp v Adams, 272 Mich
App 209 (2006). The motion to dismiss and request for sanctions is DENIED.
MARKMAN, J. (dissenting).
I would not reverse the Court of Appeals. Instead, I would grant leave to appeal to
consider: (1) whether, contrary to MCL 600.745(2), which is designed to determine
whether Michigan constitutes a reasonably convenient place for certain types of
litigation, the trial court erred in importing a standard drawn from the common law,
which is designed to determine whether Michigan constitutes the most convenient place
for certain other types of litigation, thereby placing a greater burden on Michigan
plaintiffs to sustain lawsuits in Michigan courts and a lesser burden on out-of-state
defendants to sustain lawsuits in out-of-state courts; and (2) whether the trial court
abused its discretion by finding that Michigan does not constitute a reasonably
convenient place for the instant litigation, thereby requiring a Michigan business to make
4
approximately 300 trips to California in order to bring a breach of contract action rather
than requiring each of approximately 300 California defendants to make one trip to
Michigan, so that the Michigan business can defend itself against a breach of contract
action, despite the fact that each such defendant has contractually consented to personal
jurisdiction in Michigan.
I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.
July 17, 2009 _________________________________________
0714 Clerk