Prime Time International Distributing Inc v. Dept of Treasury
322 Mich. App. 46
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Michigan State Police seized large quantities of tobacco from multiple plaintiffs (Prime Time, MFJ Enterprises, Chase Cash & Carry, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community) under the Tobacco Products Tax Act (TPTA) in 2015–2016.
- Each plaintiff requested administrative hearings under MCL 205.429(3); the Department of Treasury upheld the forfeitures.
- Plaintiffs timely sought judicial review. The TPTA directs aggrieved persons to "appeal to the circuit court of the county where the seizure was made" (MCL 205.429(4)).
- The Department filed notices seeking transfer of the cases to the Court of Claims under the Court of Claims Act (CCA), asserting exclusive Court of Claims jurisdiction over suits against state departments (MCL 600.6419(1)).
- The Court of Claims concluded the TPTA confers exclusive jurisdiction on the circuit court and remanded the actions to circuit court; the Department appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over these TPTA appeals or the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: TPTA provides an appeal to the circuit court, so circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction under MCL 205.429(4) | Department: CCA (MCL 600.6419) gives the Court of Claims exclusive jurisdiction over claims against state departments; MCL 600.6419(5) exception does not apply because TPTA does not confer exclusive circuit-court jurisdiction | Held: Circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction because TPTA explicitly directs appeals to the circuit court and MCL 600.6419(5) applies to preserve that exclusivity |
| Whether the statutory procedure is an "appeal" or an original action (affecting applicability of CCA exception) | Plaintiffs: The post‑hearing judicial review is an "appeal" under the TPTA and established definitions of appeal | Department: The review involves discovery, motions, and trials, so functionally it is an original action for which Court of Claims jurisdiction is proper | Held: The procedure is an "appeal"—a review of an administrative determination—and its procedural features do not transform it into an original action for CCA purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Connell v. Dir. of Elections, 316 Mich. App. 91 (analysis of when CCA exceptions preserve circuit-court exclusivity)
- Teddy 23, LLC v. Michigan Film Office, 313 Mich. App. 557 (methods for judicial review of agency decisions)
- Keweenaw Bay Outfitters v. Dep’t of Treasury, 252 Mich. App. 95 (appeal from agency governed by Chapter 2 court rules but still an appeal)
- Parkwood Ltd. Dividend Hous. Ass'n v. State Hous. Dev. Auth., 468 Mich. 763 (Court of Claims exclusive jurisdiction principles)
- In re Mfr. Freight Forwarding Co., 294 Mich. 57 (definition of "appeal" as removal for review)