Case ID: nw2d_909/html/0266-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Yvette M. CORMIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PF FITNESS-MIDLAND, LLC, and Pla-Fit Franchise, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, and Planet Fitness Holdings, LLC, Planet Fitness Equipment, LLC, Planet Fitness NAF, LLC, PFIP, LLC, and TSG Consumer Partners, LLC, Defendants.
    SC: 156116 COA: 331286
    Supreme Court of Michigan.
    April 6, 2018
    Order
   On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 1, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment concluding that the plaintiff had abandoned her claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), MCL 445.901 et seq . The plaintiff attached her complaint to her brief, cited the governing statute, MCL 445.901 et seq ., and provided a two-page discussion of her theory supporting her claims. Thus, the plaintiff did not simply announce her position and leave it to the court to rationalize her basis, nor did she require the court to search for authority either to sustain or reject her position in this statutory cause of action. Cf. Wilson v. Taylor , 457 Mich. 232, 243, 577 N.W.2d 100 (1998), quoting Mitcham v. Detroit , 355 Mich. 182, 203, 94 N.W.2d 388 (1959). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals erred in declining to consider the plaintiff's MCPA claims. Therefore, we REMAND this case to that court for consideration of the trial court's grant of summary disposition on those claims. See Brownlow v. McCall Enterprises, Inc. , 315 Mich.App. 103, 888 N.W.2d 295 (2016).

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.