Parise v. Detroit Entertainment, LLC
295 Mich. App. 25
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff alleges $600,000+ in gambling losses at MotorCity Casino (Detroit) between 2002–2009, seeking recovery under MCL 600.2939(1).
- Defendant, subject to the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act (MGCRA), moves for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8).
- Trial court granted defendant’s motion, denying plaintiff’s, ruling MGCRA precludes recovery under 600.2939(1).
- MGCRA Section 3(3) provides that any inconsistent law does not apply to casino gaming; MGCRA governs Detroit casino gambling.
- Plaintiff contends Proposal E affects the interaction of MGCRA with 600.2939(1) and argues patron vs. casino scope difference.
- Court holds MGCRA controls and bars recovery under 600.2939(1); summary disposition affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MGCRA preclude 600.2939(1) recovery? | Plaintiff (and Proposal E) limit the MGCRA’s reach; 600.2939(1) still applicable to non-Indian gaming. | MGCRA is specific and controls; any inconsistent law (600.2939(1)) does not apply to casino gaming. | MGCRA precludes recovery under 600.2939(1). |
| How do Proposal E and MGCRA interact with 600.2939(1)? | Proposal E tolerates legalized gaming without repealing other gambling statutes; MGCRA’s definitions may differ from common-law gaming. | MGCRA is more specific and recent; its definitions and preemption render 600.2939(1) inapplicable. | Interaction favors MGCRA; 600.2939(1) not applicable. |
| Is summary disposition proper on the pleadings? | Dispute on statutory interpretation could support claim under 600.2939(1). | Plaintiff fails to state a legally cognizable claim because MGCRA governs casino gaming and 600.2939(1) is inconsistent with MGCRA. | Yes; summary disposition proper under MCR 2.116(C)(8). |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (1999) (standard of review on summary disposition de novo)
- Newton v Bank West, 262 Mich App 434 (2004) (MCR 2.116(C)(8) testing legal sufficiency on pleadings)
- Feyz v Mercy Mem Hosp, 475 Mich 663 (2006) (principles of statutory interpretation and survival of claims)
- Klooster v City of Charlevoix, 488 Mich 289 (2011) (statutory interpretation: legislature intent and harmonization)
- Koontz v Ameritech Servs, Inc, 466 Mich 304 (2002) (recent and specific statutes prevail over older, general ones)
- Travelers Ins v U-Haul of Mich, Inc, 235 Mich App 273 (1999) (prefers harmonization of related statutes)