Z&Z Fireworks v. City of Roseville
333642
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 25, 2017Background
- Z & Z Fireworks sought licenses to sell fireworks from temporary tents in the City of Roseville; the city denied the applications under a local ordinance requiring sellers from temporary structures to be "established merchants" operating from a permanent structure and meeting adjacency and revenue-similarity requirements.
- Z & Z sued, alleging the Michigan Fireworks Safety Act (MFSA), MCL 28.451 et seq., preempted Roseville’s ordinance and barred enforcement against its fireworks sales.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for the City and denied Z & Z’s motion; Z & Z appealed.
- Central statutory provision: MCL 28.457(1) prohibits local units from enacting or enforcing ordinances "pertaining to or in any manner regulating the sale...of fireworks" regulated by the MFSA.
- Roseville’s ordinance regulates the sale of goods from temporary structures generally and does not mention fireworks specifically; application of the ordinance to Z & Z was incidental to its tent-based sales.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 28.457(1) directly preempts Roseville’s ordinance | MCL 28.457(1) bars cities from enforcing any ordinance that regulates the sale of fireworks, so Roseville’s denial is preempted | Roseville’s ordinance does not regulate fireworks per se but regulates temporary-structure vending generally, so there is no direct conflict | No direct-conflict preemption; statute and ordinance can be read harmoniously |
| Whether the MFSA field-preempts local regulation covering fireworks sales | MFSA occupies the field of fireworks regulation, so any local rule that affects fireworks sales is preempted | MFSA does not occupy the entire field to the exclusion of unrelated local regulations; Roseville regulated tents, not fireworks sales directly | No field preemption; the ordinance regulates an area outside the field MFSA occupies |
| Applicability of Mich Coalition precedent | Mich Coalition shows local rules were preempted where ordinance specifically regulated a subject the statute disallowed | Mich Coalition is distinguishable because that ordinance explicitly regulated where guns could be carried, whereas Roseville’s ordinance governs temporary-structure vending generally | Mich Coalition is inapplicable; factual and statutory formulations differ |
| Standard of review on summary disposition | N/A (procedural) | N/A (procedural) | Review de novo; C(10) standard applied and no genuine issue of material fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 495 Mich 1 (discusses municipal power and preemption/field-occupation principles)
- Llewellyn v. People, 401 Mich 314 (factors for field preemption and when state law excludes local regulation)
- McNeil v. Charlevoix County, 275 Mich App 686 (defines direct conflict preemption: local allows what statute prohibits or vice versa)
- Mich Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners v. Ferndale, 256 Mich App 401 (example of preemption where ordinance directly regulated an area statutorily forbidden)
- Ronnisch Construction Group v. Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 499 Mich 544 (mandates plain-language statutory comparison)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (summary disposition standard; evaluate evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)