John Does 11-18 v. Department of Corrections, 332182

Background

Juvenile plaintiffs (John Does 1–18, Jane Doe 1) alleged sexual abuse in Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) facilities and sued state officials, asserting claims under the Child Protection Law (CPL) and Social Welfare Act (SWA); some earlier ELCRA claims were dismissed under PLRA notice requirements.
After appellate proceedings (Does I) and amendments, defendants transferred the CPL/SWA claims to the Court of Claims while related matters remained pending in circuit court.
Plaintiffs moved to remand to circuit court, arguing they had a right to jury trials; defendants moved in the Court of Claims for summary disposition on governmental immunity, res judicata, and failure to file Court of Claims notice of intent.
The Court of Claims retained jurisdiction, ruled plaintiffs had no jury-trial right against the State for CPL/SWA claims, and granted summary disposition for defendants under MCR 2.116(C)(7) based on governmental immunity (and alternatively res judicata and notice defects).
On appeal, this Court affirmed: exclusive Court of Claims jurisdiction applied; plaintiffs lacked a jury-trial right against the State; and the GTLA governmental-immunity protections barred the CPL and SWA claims against State and high-level executive officials.
The panel observed the Supreme Court’s vacation of earlier portions of Does I removed the res judicata bar, but affirmed dismissal on governmental immunity grounds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction because plaintiffs had right to jury trial	CPL and SWA create damages causes entitling plaintiffs to jury trial, so case belongs in circuit court	Court of Claims Act preserves jury rights only where constitutionally/traditionally available against the State; no right against State for these claims	No jury-trial right against the State for CPL/SWA claims; Court of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction
Whether CPL or SWA create exception to governmental immunity for state defendants	CPL/SWA impose civil liability and thus displace GTLA immunity for failures to report	CPL and SWA do not waive GTLA immunity; prior precedent treats CPL claims as subject to GTLA; SWA is similar	CPL and SWA do not create additional exceptions to GTLA; defendants immune
Whether highest executive officials share immunity for alleged intentional torts	Plaintiffs contend conduct amounts to intentional torts, avoiding immunity	MCL 691.1407(5) grants immunity to elective/highest appointive executive officials acting in executive scope; intentional-tort immunity preserved	Executive officials immune for actions within executive authority; intentional-tort claim does not overcome immunity
Whether prior Does I decision bars these claims by res judicata	Plaintiffs argue claims are distinct or preserved; court below invoked res judicata	Defendants argued claims could have been litigated in Does I and earlier decision was final	Supreme Court later vacated part of Does I; court noted res judicata inappropriate post-vacatur; but affirmed dismissal on immunity grounds

Key Cases Cited

Mason Co v. Dep’t of Community Health, 293 Mich. App. 462 (construes jurisdictional/statutory review standards)
Odom v. Wayne Co., 482 Mich. 459 (statutory interpretation and limits on recovery against state officials)
Greenfield Constr. Co. v. Dep’t of State Hwys., 402 Mich. 172 (Court of Claims as legislative waiver of sovereign immunity)
Okrie v. State, 306 Mich. App. 445 (Court of Claims authority derives from Legislature)
Petipren v. Jaskowski, 494 Mich. 190 (standard of review for MCR 2.116(C)(7))
Anzaldua v. Band, 457 Mich. 530 (distinction between legal and equitable claims for jury-right analysis)
New Prods. Corp. v. Harbor Shores BHBT Land Dev., LLC, 308 Mich. App. 638 (tests for historical jury-right existence)
Nawrocki v. Macomb Co. Rd. Comm., 463 Mich. 143 (governmental immunity principles)
Smith v. Kowalski, 223 Mich. App. 610 (consideration of documentary evidence on C(7) motions)
Codd v. Wayne Co., 210 Mich. App. 133 (plaintiff must allege facts fitting GTLA exceptions)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Corby Energy Servs., Inc., 271 Mich. App. 480 (Legislature may create exceptions to GTLA in other statutes)
In re Jones, 300 Mich. App. 65 (CPL does not create additional GTLA exception)