Ross v. MMI Asset Management Group, LLC
4:24-cv-10342
E.D. Mich.Sep 27, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Fairy Ross invested in two promissory notes issued by MMI Asset Management Group, totaling $170,000 in 2013 via her self-directed IRA.
- The notes required MMI to pay Ross principal plus 7% interest per year, becoming due after eight years (in 2021).
- Ross alleged she received no payment on either note and sued MMI for breach of contract in Michigan state court; MMI removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- MMI argued that Ross's investment was functionally in third-party real estate projects and that she had purportedly received what she was owed through dividends or restructuring events.
- Ross moved for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim (Count I); procedural delays stemmed from MMI’s change of counsel and document filings but did not affect the substantive arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing Law | Michigan law should apply, not Delaware, as Delaware has no substantial relationship to the dispute. | No serious opposition; no substantial relationship to Delaware. | Michigan law applies. |
| Existence of Contract | Valid promissory notes existed; Ross provided consideration as lender. | Disputed identity of lender/obligee (arguing notes payable to trust, not Ross). | Ross proved existence of contract as lender. |
| Breach of Contract | No payments made by MMI on principal or interest; entitled to full payment. | Asserts payments made via dividends; claims Ross’s return was tied to land investments' outcomes. | No evidence of payments; breach established. |
| Summary Judgment Prematurity | Entitled to judgment due to absence of genuine material fact. | More discovery needed due to alleged complex facts. | MMI’s conclusory assertions insufficient; summary judgment appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment appropriate where evidence is one-sided)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party opposing summary judgment must show specific facts indicating a genuine issue for trial)
- Bank of Am., NA v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 499 Mich. 74 (2016) (elements of breach of contract claim under Michigan law)
- Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (federal courts in diversity must apply state substantive law)