*1 Fraser v Almeda Univ CITY OF FRASER v ALMEDAUNIVERSITY 2, 2015, Docket No. 323499. Submitted December at Detroit. Decided January 14, at 9:00 a.m. city brought The Court, an action in the Macomb Circuit alleging University that Almeda violated the Authentic Creden- Act, seq. tials in Education MCL 390.1601 et Defendant is an university, incorporated Nevis, online in the Caribbean island of Experience” degrees. “Life offers Between 2003 and plaintiffs employees, officers, police several of all obtained de- grees required complete any classes, from defendant. None was to coursework, research, degrees. or exams to receive the After obtaining degrees, plaintiffs employees degrees 11of used the to increase their salaries and to obtain educational allowance plaintiff reimbursements. Defendant and both moved for sum- mary disposition. court, J., Foster, John C. ruled in favor of plaintiff $600,000 damages. and ap- awarded it in Defendant pealed. Appeals
The Court of held: three-part 1. Courts use a test to determine whether a defen- Michigan dant has minimum contacts with to the extent that personal jurisdiction may limited be exercised accordance with First, process. purposefully due the defendant must have availed privilege conducting Michigan, itself of the activities in thus invoking protections Second, the benefits and of this state’s laws. the cause of action must arise from the defendant’s activities in Third, substantially the state. the defendant’s activities must be Michigan jurisdiction connected with to make the exercise over case, by accepting applications the defendant reasonable. In this payments website, employees through and its learning they Michigan—and even after lived in subse- quently continuing employees to transact business with those Michigan by awarding degrees, mailing diplomas them Michi- addresses, gan offering products additional alumni purposefully privilege services—defendant availed itself of the conducting Michigan. Second, activities the cause of action— the issuance of fraudulent academic credentials in violation of directly MCL 390.1603—arose from defendant’s activities in issuing i.e., conducting program and Michigan, an academic Third, Michigan price the record diplomas residents. for a multiple business clearly established indicates that defendant diplomas relationships and issued residents applica- accepting the customers’ after customers *2 Especially given business is that defendant’s tions and fees. online, an actual entirely defendant does not have conducted subject jurisdiction in to campus, that it should be it is sensible Michigan'—where states'—including it conducts its business. the jurisdiction Therefore, over defendant exercise of the trial court’s was reasonable. knowingly person states that a shall 2. MCL 390.1603 in credential this state. manufacture a false academic
issue or by any issued it academic credential Defendant conceded Michigan under law. The qualified academic credential as a false light In defined the act. of in MCL 390.1603 is not term “issue” means, term, conjunction dictionary in the “issue” definitions of officially state,” put in Michi- forth or distribute with “in this Michigan “issued” in gan, a false academic credential is such that electronically provided to an mail or if it is distributed to or understanding Michigan. of “issue” in the state of This individual purpose the The trial court with the of statute. is consistent correctly fraudulent academic cre- ruled that defendant issued in in violation of MCL 390.1603. dentials 390.1605, person damaged by a violation of 3. Under MCL costs, may may bring reasonable civil action and recover the act fees, greater person’s attorney either the actual and the of $100,000. plain- damages Although correct that defendant was loss, plaintiffs employees of defendant were also cause tiffs requirement that a defendant points under law to no plaintiffs loss in order for the the sole cause of the must be plaintiff the act. to recover under plain- argued it was entitled to assert that 4. Defendant knowingly accepted right damages the because it tiff waived its and, therefore, employees degrees acted with fraudulent from its seeking equitable protection an de- unclean hands. One hands, party in and a who has acted must do so with clean fense equity with clean the law is not before a court violation of Accord- acted in violation of MCL 390.1603. hands. Defendant raising equitable defense ingly, an defendant was barred may against plaintiff defendant with unclean hands because a plaintiff ground has unclean hands as that the not defend on well. v Almeda Univ subject six-year period 5. Plaintiffs claims were to the complaint
limitations MCL 600.5813. Plaintiff filed its on January 31, Therefore, period, 2013. to fall within the limitations degrees question must have been issued no earlier than January 31, only degrees 2007. Plaintiff conceded that 1 of the 11 31, question January was issued on or after 2007. The trial court, however, applied continuing-violations doctrine to plaintiffs claims, concluding that each of the 11 claims continued degree to accrue until 2009 when defendant issued the last to one plaintiffs employees. application The trial court’s of the continuing-violations given doctrine inwas error that the Michi- gan Supreme continuing-violations Court has held that contrary Michigan place doctrine is law and has no continued jurisprudence Accordingly,only plain- in the of this state. one of claims, January tiffs that which accrued after is limitations, allowed under the statute of and the trial court erred by holding otherwise. triggered by 6. The doctrine of laches failure something to do that should have been done under the circum- right proper stances or failure to claim or enforce a at the time. only applicable But the doctrine is in cases in which there anis unexplained delay commencing unexcused or an action and a corresponding change preju- of material condition that results in *3 case, party. dice to a In this not defendant was entitled to assert equitable the defense of laches because it came before the trial proffered court with unclean hands. Defendant also no evidence demonstrating prejudice filing in the trial court related to the timely correctly Accordingly, filed claim. the trial court rejected argument. defendant’s laches grants Congress power 7. The United States Constitution the regulate foreign among to commerce with nations and the states. The dormant Commerce Clause is an extension of the Commerce Clause, prohibits against and it state laws that discriminate or unduly case, burden interstate commerce. In this there was no directly basis from which to conclude that the act controls occurring wholly commerce outside the boundaries of Michigan’s authority. and exceeds the inherent limits of was Nor facially there a which to the act basis from conclude Rather, against act discriminates interstate commerce. merely regulates evenhandedly only upon with incidental effects interstate commerce. There was no indication that the burden imposed clearly on interstate commerce was excessive in relation putative to the local benefit. part, part,
Affirmed in reversed in and remanded. APP 79 Opinion Court of the joined J., concurring part dissenting part, and P. Murray, denying majority’s to affirm the trial court’s order decision summary disposition on the basis of no defendant’s motion for holding personal jurisdiction, that MCL but dissented from its defendant, applied trial and would have reversed the 390.1603 entry granting judgment for of an order court’s and remanded summary disposition Sections 3 and 4 ofthe in favor of defendant. prohibitions, each section addresses a act contain act’s 390.1603, Legislature prohibits In MCL § different concern. (who institutions) qualified issuing persons from or are not manufacturing in this state. This false academic credentials operating (issuing prevents diploma or manu- mills from section credentials) facturing MCL academic in this state. Section 390.1604, limiting individual’s use of a false focuses on an by prohibiting using false academic credential individuals circumstances, including in credentials in certain em- academic by ployment the Fraser officers. Section 3 situations as was done entity. exclusively issuing actions of the focuses on the put by distributed credentials issued defendant were forth or Michigan. defendant outside Because defendant did not issue Michigan, simply apply. § academic credentials in did “mailing” “delivering,” Construing which is “issue” to mean does, majority opinion essentially expands the statute what the beyond Legislature provided what the for in the words of the recognizing enforcing importantly, sepa- as statute. Just they the act and the different issues address rate sections of underlying objectives that the the act were en- would ensure forced. Issuing — —
Actions Authentic Credentials in Education Act False Academic Credentials. 390.1603, person knowingly Under MCL shall not issue or state; academic credential in this the term manufacture a false means, state,” conjunction put “in forth or “issue” this officially Michigan, such that a false academic distribute provided if it credential is “issued”in is distributed to or electronically Michigan. an individual in the state of mail or Meihn) Foley (by Gregory city & M. Mansfield Fraser. *4 and Alex- (by Summerfield)
Bodman PLC Brian C. Paykin University. ander for Almeda y Almeda Univ MURRAY, P.J., Before: and METER JJ. RlORDAN, RlORDAN, J. Defendant Almeda University appeals as the trial right court’s order granting plaintiff City of Fraser’s motion summary disposition. We affirm in part, part, reverse and remand for further proceed- ings.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case involves the Authentic Credentials (the Act), Education Act MCL 390.1601 seq. et Defen- dant is an university, online incorporated the Carib- Nevis, bean island of that offers “Life Experience” degrees prospective “students.” All interactions with place through those students take defendant’s website. To obtain a an degree, applicant submits an elec- tronic and a application outlining résumé the appli- cant’s professional “verifiable and educational achieve- ments . . . .” If defendant determines that an applicant is eligible requested receive the the student degree, is an required to make online credit card payment of for a degree, bachelor’s for a $499 master’s $795 $1,495 degree, for a doctoral Once the degree. applicant pays fee, the online defendant mails the degree desired directly applicant’s home. In addition to providing degrees, defendant offers assis- résumés, job tance with applications, and interviews promotional markets apparel bearing defendant’s name for purchase. website,
On its defendant states that it has “over 26,000 7,000 online students over cities worldwide.” It undisputed some of those students are time, residents. At one defendant high- on lighted its website the success of two Michigan residents who were awarded degrees by defendant. *5 op Opinion the Court County. located in Macomb municipality
Plaintiff is a 2009, employees, police 16 of its all 2003 and Between defendant. None of the officers, degrees from obtained classes, course- any to required complete was employees At receive the issue work, research, degrees. or exams to plaintiffs are issued to degrees in this case 5, March 2009. June and between employees defendant, the 11 degrees these obtaining After their salaries degrees to increase employees used $3,000 on the $1,000 per year, depending and between increasing those Along type degree purchased. 11 of reimbursed compensation, plaintiff employees’ Overall, plaintiff allowances. them with educational $143,848 for the employees pur- a total of to paid Almeda degrees. chase of 31, 2013, filed a one-count January plaintiff On defendant, defendant alleging that complaint against the Act itself out as an institution by holding violated sought academic Plaintiff degrees. authorized to award $100,000 for each of damages, more than million $1 degrees Almeda employees who used plaintiffs and tuition reimbursement. salary increases summary disposition pursuant Defendant moved for 2.116(C)(1) (court jurisdiction MCR lacks over to (5) claim lacks to (party asserting legal capacity party), (8) (failure claim). sue), to state a Most relevant to and trial did argued defendant that the court appeal, this over defendant. The personal jurisdiction not have motion. trial court and denied defendant’s disagreed for sum- Plaintiff filed its own motion subsequently 2.116(C)(10), to MCR con- mary disposition pursuant it lacked tending that defendant’s admissions plain- under state or federal law entitled accreditation liability against tiff an order of defendant response, favor. In its defendant damages v Almeda Univ Opinion op the Court (1) liability denied on the basis that the Act requires degrees be issued or manufactured in liability prove because cannot control behav- (2) state, ior that lawfully occurs outside the since only were mailed degrees Michigan residents, defendant did not violate the Act. Defendant also plaintiff asserted that was not damaged defendant’s conduct, but its own who employees used the degrees to obtain additional and tuition pay reim- Finally, bursement. defendant asserted that plaintiff *6 right waived its to sue defendant under the Act be- cause plaintiff, which had known about the situation at 2007, inexplicably since least waited until 2013 to file the action and continued to accept defendant’s degrees from its and increase their employees pay after it discovered the details of the way degrees were earned and defendant’s lack of accreditation.
The trial
in plaintiffs
court ruled
favor and awarded
$600,000 ($100,000
it
degrees
by
each for the six
issued
2005).
defendant after the Act took effect in
II. GENERAL
OF REVIEW
STANDARDS
a trial
regarding
We review
court’s decision
a motion
summary
for
de
disposition
Caspari,
novo. Yoost v
295
(2012).
209, 219;
Mich App
The rest of the issues raised on
arise from the
appeal
grant
summary
trial court’s
in favor of
disposition
2.116(C)(10).
reviewing
When
under MCR
plaintiff
to MCR
summary disposition pursuant
motion for
consider, in the
2.116(C)(10),
may only
light
Court
this
motion,
opposing
to the party
most favorable
court,
was before the trial
which consists
evidence that
‘affidavits,
pleadings, deposi
together
of “the
documentary evidence then
tions, admissions, and
”
parties!.]’
action or submitted
filed in the
Mich, Mich
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Calhoun Co v
(2012),
MCR
1, 11-12;
quoting
III. PERSONAL JURISDICTION argues Defendant first that the trial court erred summary on the denying disposition its motion lacked over ground personal jurisdiction that the court *7 disagree. defendant. We
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW law, novo, We de as a of “whether a question review a . . . .” personal jurisdiction party court over possesses Yoost, at 219. We also review de novo 295 Mich defendant, a jurisdiction an exercise of over whether is consistent with the notions corporation, nonresident fair under the Due play justice substantial Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. Fraser v Almeda Univ When the defendant has brought motion for sum- mary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(1), plaintiff
[t]he establishing jurisdiction bears the burden of defendant, over only but need prima make a facie showing jurisdiction summary [the] to defeat motion for disposition. complaint accepted must be as specifically by true unless contradicted affidavits or other by Thus, parties. evidence submitted allegations when pleadings are documentary contradicted evi- dence, plaintiff may allegations on rest mere but produce must prima admissible evidence of his or her facie establishing jurisdiction. [Yoost, case at 221 omitted).] (quotation marks and citations
B. ANALYSIS Yoost, In 295 Mich App 222-223, at we summarized analysis the proper determining whether trial court has properly personal jurisdiction exercised over a defendant: examining may
When whether a court exer- jurisdiction personal defendant, cise limited over a this employs analysis. First, two-step Court this Court jurisdiction ascertains whether is authorized Michi- gan’s long-arm Second, statute. this Court determines if jurisdiction the exercise of require- is consistent with the ments of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth prongs analysis Amendment. Both of this must be satis- properly fied for a court to limited exercise personal jurisdiction Long-arm over a nonresident. stat- nature, character, types utes establish the of contacts purposes exercising personal juris- that must exist for hand, process, permis- diction. Due on the other restricts long-arm jurisdiction by defining quality sible necessary justify personal jurisdiction contacts under [Quotation omitted.] constitution. marks and citations challenges Defendant the trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction. argues It that the court erred by *8 314 MICH Opinion the Court Michigan’s long- under
exercising personal jurisdiction
statute,
600.715,
the exercise
arm
MCL
because
with constitu-
was not consistent
jurisdiction
personal
essence,
effectively
In
defendant
due process.1
tional
analysis,
the first
of the
that,
step
under
concedes
concluded that
it could exercise
properly
trial court
under
jurisdiction over defendant
personal
limited
Accordingly,
statute.
we focus our
Michigan’s long-arm
juris-
on
the trial court’s exercise of
analysis
whether
comported
process.
defendant
with due
diction over
process
touchstone’ of a due
“The ‘constitutional
jurisdiction
analysis
respect
personal
with
mini-
established the
purposely
whether the defendant
to make
necessary
mum
with the forum state
contacts
the defendant fair and
jurisdiction
the exercise of
over
Resort, Inc, 246
Oberlies v Searchmont
reasonable.”
(2001) (citations
433;
Courts to the defendant has minimum contacts jurisdiction may personal that limited be exercised extent process. in accordance with due First, purposefully have the defendant must privilege conducting availed himself of the activi- invoking Michigan, thus the benefits and ties Second, protections of this state’s laws. the cause of from the defendant’s activities in action must arise Third, the state. the defendant’s activities must be substantially connected with to make the jurisdiction exercise of over the defendant reason- omitted).] (quotation [Id. and citations able. marks that the trial court concluded that it had limited Defendant states 600.715(1). However, jurisdiction personal over defendant under MCL personal expressly found that it could exercise limited trial court 600.715(5). jurisdiction pursuant MCL over defendant v Almeda Univ record that the first prong shows test was “ £[P]urposeful met this case. availment’ is some *9 undertaking akin either to a deliberate to do or thing cause an act or done in or conduct thing Michigan be can as a properly regarded prime generating which be the in resulting Michigan, something cause of effects passive Michigan opportuni more than a availment of ties.” Id. at 434 marks and citations omit (quotation ted). Similarly, beyond when a “reach out one party [es] continuing state and create and obli relationships [s] state,” with citizens of another has gations party self of the business privilege conducting [it] “availed Rudzewicz, there . . . .” v 471 US Burger King Corp 462, 473, 476; 2174; L Ed 2d 105 S Ct 85 528 and from By accepting applications payments plain- website, after learn- employees through tiffs its even they Michigan—and lived in ing subsequently continuing employees to transact business with those Michigan by awarding degrees, mailing diplo- in them addresses, offering mas to and additional Michigan “purpose- alumni and services—defendant products conducting availed itself of the activi- fully privilege Yoost, . . . .” 295 Mich at 223 ties omitted). The record marks and citation (quotation engaged Michigan shows that defendant customers Moreover, defendant regular continuing and manner. success stories of highlighted personal they degrees on its after purchased residents website defendant, availability, thereby advertising benefits, for residents. degrees Michigan and of its Inc, Screening, find v Neo Gen 282 Neogen Corp We (CA In 6, 2002), 883 instructive this case. F3d Appeals the United States Court of Neogen Corp, Co v Dot Zippo Mfg Zippo the Sixth Circuit relied on (WD Com, Pa, 1997), in Inc, 952 F Supp determining purposefully company whether a availed through provided website, itself of a state followingsummary its inquiry:
of the relevant purposefully privilege A defendant avails itself of the acting through in a state its if the website website is degree specifically interactive to a that reveals intended Zippo Mfg. interaction with residents of the state. Co. v. (W.D.Pa. Com, Inc., Zippo F.Supp. Dot 1997) “sliding interactivity identify (using a scale” of availment). activity purposeful Internet that constitutes Zippo, In the district court held that the defendant mani- purposeful privilege acting its fested availment of Pennsylvania “repeatedly consciously when it chose to process Pennsylvania applications assign residents’ and to passwords,” knowing them that the result of these Inter- perform Pennsylva- net contacts would be to services for part through nia customers in elec- transmission of Pennsylvania. messages tronic Id. at 1126. Such *10 state, intentional interaction with the residents of a forum concluded, Zippo court is evidence of a conscious choice to transact a business with inhabitants of forum way passive posting state in a that the of information anywhere [Neogen accessible from in the Id. world not. Corp, 890.] 282 F3d at
The Sixth Circuit found that it was not clear that the necessarily provided at in Neogen website issue Corp jurisdiction primarily “consisted] it basis because passively posted information.” Id. at 890. Neverthe- company’s less, it found that the 14 annual business Michigan transactions with customers constituted a “purposeful notably, Id. at availment.” 891-892. Most the court reasoned:
Although
Michigan
[the
customers
contacted
defen-
(NGS)],
way around,
dant
and not the other
could
NGS
accept payment
mail test results to and
from customers
Michigan
intentionally choosing
with
addresses without
Michigan.
to conduct business in
This
establishes
v Almeda Univ
Michigan.
chose to contract with customers from
NGS
Additionally, part
packaging
of NGS’s service is the
performs.
the results of the tests that it
When NGS mails
customers,
Michigan
these test results to its
or sends
website,
interactively
password
them a
to be used
on its
Michigan
perform
reaches out to
its services there.
NGS
which,
alleged
in
Neogen has therefore
facts
when viewed
light
Neogen, support
finding that
most favorable to
doing
purposefully
privilege
itself of the
NGS
availed
Michigan. [Id.
892.]
in
at
business
through
case,
its website
In this
defendant’s conduct
company
Zippo
than in
was more similar to the
consciously
Neogen Corp. Defendant
transacted busi-
Michigan
Further, we conclude
ness with
residents.
Neogen,
defendant,
couldnot
like the defendant
accept payments
diplomas to,
from,
mail
students
intentionally
Michigan
choos-
“with
ing
addresses without
Michigan.”
Thus,
Id. at 892.
to conduct business
it
that defendant’s conduct constituted more
is clear
”
“merely ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’
than
or ‘attenuated’
Michigan. Oberlies,
at
contacts
quoting Burger King,
Second, to defendant’s action, i.e., the issuance of is evident that the cause of MCL credentials in violation of fraudulent academic directly 390.1603, from defendant’s activities arose program Michigan—conducting and issu- an academic price ing diplomas residents. We for a complete reject argument that “there is a defendant’s [plaintiff],” privity [defendant] as lack of privity between juris- requirement personal exercise is not a given Likewise, defen- diction under law. *11 reject case, defendant’s conduct in this we dant’s clear ways improper jurisdiction on the based claim that employees or the in which actions injured may plaintiff. have terms ofits union contracts App 314 MICH 79 Finally, prong test, under the third of the “defen- substantially dant’s activities must connected be with Michigan jurisdiction to make the exercise of over the App Oberlies, defendant reasonable.” Mich at 433 omitted). (quotation reject marks and citations We impossible defendant’s claim that it was for defendant liability Michigan Again, to foresee for its conduct. clearly the record multiple indicates defendant established relationships business resi- diplomas dents and issued customers accepting applications after the customers’ and fees. Especially given that defendant’s business is con- entirely online, ducted and defendant does not have an campus, subject actual it is it sensible that should be jurisdiction states—including Michigan—where in the it Therefore, conducts its business. we conclude that jurisdiction the trial court’s exercise of over defendant was reasonable.
IV. APPLICABILITY OF MCL 390.1603 argues improp- Defendant next that the trial court erly applied concluded that MCL 390.1603 to defen- disagree. dant. We
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
opinion,
As stated earlier in this
this Court reviews
grant
summary disposition
a trial court’s
or denial of
de novo. Moraccini v Sterling
Hts,
(2012).
391; 822 NW2d 799
statutory interpretation
questions
“Matters of
are
law, which we review under a de novo standard of
review.”
Lounge,
Shorecrest Lanes &
Inc v Liquor
456, 460;
252
[w]e not beyond expressed in the statute. Legislature words may regard to the differ with When reasonable minds object statute, meaning must look the of a the courts statute, designed remedy, apply harm it is accomplishes the that best construction reasonable at 429-430 [Oberlies, purpose of the statute. (citation omitted).]
B. ANALYSIS “A not know- person shall provides, 390.1603 MCL academic credential or a false issue manufacture ingly in the trial court conceded in this state.” Defendant MICH 79 Opinion Court any that academic credential issued manufactured qualifies it aas “false academic under credential” parties law. Both also agree defendant not does “manufacture” false academic credentials in Michigan. Accordingly, only defendant’s argument on appeal statute is applicable to its conduct it did because not “issue” false cre- academic “in dentials this state.” In particular, defendant asserts that the only statute applies false academic creden- *13 that tials originate Michigan. reject We defendant’s claim.
The term
“issue” MCL 390.1603 is not
defined
the Act. “When the Legislature has not defined a stat-
terms,
may
ute’s
we
dictionary
consider
definitions to
aid our interpretation.” Autodie LLC v
Rapids,
Grand
423, 434;
305 Mich App
manufacture academic Co, King Ford Credit 2005 PA title. See v Motor *14 (2003) (“A 311-312; [Michigan title] is statute’s not to be NW2d 357 668 act, interpret authority construing for it useful an but is considered scope.”). ing statutory purpose and 3 Murray correctly dissent, Judge agree that we on partial *15 97 v Almeda Univ a legislative on
Furthermore, defendant relies it was into signed of the bill written before analysis 15, Analysis, 136, June law, Legislative House SB see [MCL argue purpose in order to that of “[t]he formation mills’ prohibit of‘diploma 390.1603] is to the are “[Legislative analyses of Michigan.” State of the statute, they have very reading [but] little value casting on the reasons light value to courts as some meaning have and the Legislature may that had the Sportsman Club they Cheboygan intended for an act.” 307 Mich Prosecuting Attorney, v Co Cheboygan (2014). However, “the 71, 81; language 858 NW2d determining legis- the source for of the statute is best Wilkes, 661, 665; v lative intent.” Neal NW2d 648 of a statute to only language we look to the
While that, intent, noteworthy it is legislative determine the legislative contrary portrayal, to defendant’s that clearly at issue indicates of the statute analysis and prevent Act to the existence the of the purpose of Michi- credentials in the state use of false academic academic creden- states that false gan. analysis jeopardize general public, to mislead the tials tend may on an rely who other individuals employers credentials, the may and threaten false individual’s distance-learning institutions. viability legitimate 15, 2005. Analysis, SB June Legislative See House contention, Moreover, contrary defendant’s regu- lack of federal specifically refers analysis that allow states’ laws leniency other lation prolif- it flourish, emphasizes mills to diploma institutions or fraudulent eration substandard This the conclusion supports Internet. rise of the effects in intended address the bill was pre- are of false academic credentials Opinion Court *16 by pared Michigan institutions outside in issued this state. agree
Therefore, we with the court trial that defen- dant issued fraudulent educational credentials Michigan and violated MCL when 390.1603 it distrib- by uted false academic credentials tomail individuals Michigan. V. OF APPLICABILITY MCL 390.1605 argues by Defendant next that the trial court erred finding plaintiff damages that suffered as a result disagree. defendant’s actions. We A. REQUIREMENT DAMAGE provides, person damaged MCL 390.1605 “A a may bring may violation of act this a civil action and attorney greater costs, fees, recover reasonable and the person’s damages of either the actual or $100,000.00.” opinion, As discussed earlier in this con- defendant’s duct constituted the issuance offalse academic creden- plaintiff Likewise, tials under the Act. demonstrated damaged by that it was acts defendant’s because it paid for fraudulent academic credentials and, based upon employee those credentials, increased salaries.
Although plaintiffs defendant is correct that em ployees plaintiffs are also a loss, cause of defendant points requirement to no under law that defendant be must the sole cause of loss plaintiff order to recover under Instead, the Act. plain language requires only of MCL 390.1605 plaintiff “damaged by that be a violation of this Academy Reporting, . . act. .” Cf. Bobbitt v Court (ED 2008) (concluding Inc, 252 FRD Mich, proof required prove that of reliance was not a v Univ Almeda an element claim MCL 390.1603 because such under statute); apparent from the text of the see was not Jury Instructions Civil also (2015), Nonstandard may “[C]ourts § not read into the statute 18:2. Legislature requirement fit has seen a Legislature a fails to address concern omit. When specific provision, a the courts in the statute with simply provision a it would insert because cannot Legislature to do to effect the have wise of the so been Mich App purpose.”Book-Gilbert, at 542 statute’s (quotation omitted). Moreover, marks and citations using false academic creden an individual’s act separate gain promotion governed is tial to statutory provision, 390.1604, MCL and there no provisions cannot function har indication both *17 given moniously apply both to situation. cannot concluding Accordingly, that the we find no basis for plaintiff precludes any damaging other role of actor finding liability in this case. reject that the trial court Thus, we defendant’s claim damaged by plaintiff it that was erred when concluded violation of Act.4 defendant’s B. UNCLEAN HANDS trial court errone- asserts that the Defendant also par- ously applied In hands. the doctrine of unclean argues entitled to assert ticular, that it was defendant right damages plaintiff because it its waived 4 by defendant issue raised to address the additional We decline summary erroneously granted disposi regarding court whether the trial discovery completed not raised in this issue was because tion before was 7.212(C)(5) (requiring questions presented. an MCR See statement questions involved in the appellant provide statement of a concise 391, 404; Mich App Corp, Westinghouse Electric 245 appeal); v Bouverette (2001) (“Independent in the statement of not raised 86 issues NW2d review.”). properly appellate presented presented for questions are Opinion Court
knowingly accepted the fraudulent degrees from its and, employees therefore, acted with unclean hands. We disagree.
One seeking
protection
of an equitable defense
hands,
must do so with clean
and “a party who has acted
of the
violation
law is not before a court of equity with
clean
.. .
hands
General v
"Attorney
PowerPick Players
Club,
(2010)
13, 52;
VI. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Defendant next argues plaintiffs claim is barred statute of limitations and doctrine of laches. agree We that the statute of limitations bars all but one of claims.
A.
OF
STANDARD
REVIEW
We “review de
question
novo the
whether
claim is
barred by the statute of limitations and the issue of the
proper interpretation
and applicability of the limita-
tions periods.” Stephens v Worden Agency, LLC,
Ins
220, 227;
Mich App
B. ANALYSIS
The Act does not contain its own statute of limita-
v Almeda
Univ
plaintiffs
subject
Therefore,
tions.
claims are
the
six-year period of limitations
in MCL
found
600.6813.
See
257 Mich
Harkins,
General v
Attorney
(2003).
569-570;
Under the
a defendant’s
continuing
period
nature,
acts are of a
oflimitation
wrong
therefore,
abated;
will not run until the
separate
day
can
cause of action
accrue each
defendant’s tortious conduct continues.”
Harkins,
(quotation
at 572
marks and citation omit-
original).
However,
ted; alteration in
Supreme
continuing-violations
Court has held that the
contrary Michigan
doctrine is
law and “has no
place
jurisprudence
continued
in the
of this state.”
Servs,
Garg
Community
v Macomb Co
Mental Health
263, 284, 290;
However,
to defendant’s
the doc-
trine of laches does not bar this claim. “The doctrine of
triggered by
plaintiffs
laches is
failure to do
something that should have been done under the
right
circumstances or failure to claim or enforce a
at
proper
App
time.” PowerPick
287 Mich
at 51.
Club,
only “applicable
But the doctrine
in cases in which
unexplained delay
there is an unexcused or
mencing
in com-
corresponding change
an
and a
action
prejudice
party.”
material condition that results in
to a
Mich
Manor,
Pub Health
v
Dep’t Rivergate
(1996);
507;
“The defendant has the burden of
diligence
lack of due
resulted in some
prejudice
to the defendant.” Yankee
Fox,
Twp
v
Springs
(2004).
App 604, 612;
264 Mich
Therefore, the trial court concluded that the doctrine of laches does not bar claim in this case.
VII. DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE ap 390.1603, Defendant also asserts that MCL as plied, constitutes a violation ofthe dormant Commerce App 79 314 Mich Opinion the Court raise this issue defendant failed to
Clause.5 Because
v
court,
appeal. Ligon
preserved
it is not
the trial
(2007).
129;
Detroit,
120,
Inc v v Almeda Univ Opinion Murray, P. J.
(cid:127)VIII. CONCLUSION Defendant has failed to establish that the trial court’s jurisdiction exercise of was erroneous. Addition- ally, the trial court properly concluded that defendant’s conduct constituted the issuance of false academic credentials violation of However, the Act. the trial court erred by holding defendant liable for the issuance of false academic credentials before January 31, 2007. Finally, reject we defendant’s argument the Act violates the dormant Commerce Clause.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this con- opinion cerning damages plaintiff. owed to We do not retain jurisdiction.
METER, J., concurred J. RlORDAN, with MURRAY, RJ. (concurring in part and dissenting I part). join the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s order denying defendant Almeda University’s motion for summary disposition on the basis of no personal jurisdiction, but dissent from its holding MCL 390.1603 applies to result, Almeda. As a I would reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for entry of an order granting summary disposition Almeda.
The Authentic Credentials in Act, Education MCL short, 390.1601 et seq., is a concise act containing only sections, five only four substantive sections.1 390.1602, Section MCL contains definitions for some of the critical terms used the act. Specifically, it provides:
As used this act: simply Section 1 declares name of the act. MCL 390.1601. *22 314 Opinion by Murray, P.J.
(a) diploma, degree or a means “Academic credential” certificate, or simi- completion transcript, educational or program of completion of a indicates that lar document courses at completion of 1 or more study or or instruction grant of an higher or the education institution of an master, degree. associate, bachelor, doctoral or (b) means an academic credential” “False academic by person that is not manufactured issued or credential qualified institution. (c) following: any “Qualified means institution” (j) education, as that term is higher An institution of in the United States. located in 20 USC defined (ii) higher autho- education Any institution of other [Emphasis added.] in this state. rized to do business Almeda issued diplomas that the agree The parties credentials,” which means “false academic were to the Fraser provided diplomas the statute the under an issued diplomas written were police officers (1) higher one of education was neither institution law, in federal nor as defined the United States within (2) in this state. to do business one authorized prohibitions, the act’s 3 and 4 contain
Sections 3, MCL In a different concern. § each section addresses (who are persons 390.1603, Legislature prohibits institutions) or manufactur- issuing not qualified specifi- It in this state. academic credentials ing false knowingly issue shall not person “[a] states that cally in this credential a false academic manufacture or from oper- mills prevents diploma state.” This section credentials) manufacturing academic or ating (issuing Id,.2 390.1604, on focuses 4, MCL “in this state.” Section academic creden- use of a false an individual’s limiting unregulated regarded institution “diploma generally as an mill” is A requirements degrees diplomas academic with few or no that awards marketplace. See HEB typically in the have no real value and that *23 v Almeda Univ by Opinion Murray, J.P. by prohibiting utilizing tial individuals from false academic credentials in certain circumstances, includ- ing employment in situations as was done the Fraser officers:
(1) An knowingly individual not shall use a false academic employment; credential to obtain a obtain promotion higher compensation or employment; in qualified institution; obtain admission to a or in connec- any loan, business, trade, tion with profession, occupa- or tion.
(2) An individual who does not have an academic knowingly credential shall not use or claim to have that employment academic credential to promotion obtain or a higher compensation employment; or to obtain admis- qualified institution; sion to a any or in connection with loan, business, trade, profession, occupation. or [MCL 390.1604.]
Finally, provides § 5, 390.1605, MCL a cause of action damages, act, violation the as well costs, as for attorney and fees. majority pivotal question states,
As the
the
is
§
whether,
under
the false academic credentials
majority
were
properly
issued
this
MCL
state.
390.1603.The
attempt
looks to dictionaries in its
to discern
meaning
the
word,
of an undefined
Detroit
Cov
Edison
Dep’t Treasury,
28, 40;
498
869
810
NW2d
(2015),
develops
the
and
definition that it
for “issue”
legal
lay
from both
and
dictionaries is
reasonable
majority
apply
one.3
But
fails to
the remainder of
Ministries,
Bd,
Higher
v
Coordinating
Inc Texas
Ed
235 SW3d
ed).
(11th
(Tex, 2007),
Collegiate Dictionary
and Merriam-Webster’s
majority
statutory
refers to a canon of
construction set forth
Supreme
a book co-authored United States
Court Justice Antonin
Scalia,
provision
ambiguous. Consequently,
but no
of this act is
we
(as
to)
statutory
cannot
there is no need
resort to tools of
construction to
Arbor,
Ashley
Twp,
resolve this case..See
Ann
LLC v
Charter
Pittsfield
138, 147;
(2012),
Corp
299 Mich
what is contained how an aca- recognize and to portion), “in this state” con- issued. When that context is demic credential MCL 390.1603 must be that sidered, conclusion issuing false academic apply person does or locale. another state credentials exclusively focuses mentioned, the statute As § issuing entity, precludes upon the actions of credential in this issuing a false academic person from most definition “issue” Using state.4 relevant (11th Dictionary Collegiate Merriam-Webster’s distribute,” “to ed), put “issue” means forth *24 a new “government the issued airmail example being Here, or other academic creden- diplomas the stamp.” the by or Almeda in put were forth distributed tials Caribbean, the academic credentials were where or put The not forth distrib- awarded. credentials were the any degree than a from Michigan, uted in more a Michigan is “issued” in when University Montana university from that after graduates resident words, In a is courses. other once decision taking online or should be awarded applicant made that student then forth “person” the or distributes degree, puts Servs, 2611; 546, 567; Inc, L Allapattah US 125 S Ct 162 Ed 2d 502 545 (2005). dissenting disagreement by majority opinions The reflected and unambiguous that is that which is into which “does not transform 166; Mayor Comm, Lansing ambiguous.” v Serv 470 Pub Detroit, Midwest, Lafarge Inc v 290 Mich 680 840 See also NW2d (2010) 240, 247; (stating disagree 629 that a reasonable NW2d meaning by the does not itself make the statute ment as to the statute And, show, attempt giving ambiguous). to all of words I effect the as act, any way purpose the or intent of the §in does not frustrate particularly considering prohibitions 3§§ in both and 4. when the noted, parties diplomas agree are academic creden As 390.1602(a), tials, “false academic credentials” MCL became (the being qualified “person”) MCL Almeda institution. virtue of 390.1602(b). Fraser v Almeda Univ
Opinion
P. J.
Murray,
that location the academic credential. Once the admin-
degree,
istrative decision is made to award the
diploma
issued—put
forth or distributed—from that
recipi-
office,
administrative
not in the state where the
e.g.,
See,
ent is located.
Starks v Presque Isle Circuit
(1912) (“When
464, 466;
In the act several in an attempt impact to reduce or eliminate the in-state (the diploma prevents persons mills. Section 3 institu- lio Opinion by Murray, P.J. them) issuing running persons or manu- from
tion or
facturing
state,
in
while
credentials
this
false academic
prohibits
§
false aca-
individuals that have obtained
advantage
using
their
them to
demic credentials
particular
many
circumstances,
different
employment.
however,
not,
act does
stretch
their
regulate diploma
mills outside this
itself so far as
prohibits
operation
instead,
their
borders;
it
state’s
prevents the use of false academic
this state and
no matter from
credentials in numerous instances
they are issued.
where
In
notes
his
However,
the
of
“issue.”
like
the
relevant definition
the term
most
given
meaning
apparently disagree
its
parties,
on the
of “issue”
we
statutory
by
phrase
A
“in this
in MCL
the
state”
390.1603.
modification
single
susceptible
ambiguous
equally
more than a
provision
if “it is
to
is
170, 177
meaning Fluor
Dep’t Treasury, Mich
Enterprises, Inc v
477
of
Comm,
Mayor
3;
(2007), citing Lansing
470
v Pub Serv
n
722
NW2d
(2004)
emphasis
154, 166;
(quotation marks and
Mich