-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

BETH ANN SMITH, Indivi dually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of STEPHEN
CHARLES SMITH and the Estate of IAN CHARLES SMITH, and GOODMAN KALAHAR, P.C.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNPUBLISHED May 14, 2015

v No. 318326 Wayne Circuit Court BABBITT, JOHNSON, OSBORNE & LE CLAINCHE, P.A., LC No. 13-010880-CK

Defendant-Appellant
and

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Before: B ECKERING , P.J., and J ANSEN and B OONSTRA , JJ.

J ANSEN
, J. ( concurring in part and dissenting in part ).

I concur with the majority’s determination that the circuit co urt lacked general personal jurisdiction over defendant Ba bbitt, Johnson, Osborne & Le Clai nche, P.A. (defendant). See MCL 600.711; Electrolines, Inc v Prudential Assurance Co, Ltd , 260 Mich App 144, 166-167; 677 NW2d 874 (2003). I also concur with the majority’s determi nation that defendant’s purposeful connection to the forum was minimally sufficient to confer limited personal jurisdiction in this particular case. See MCL 600.715; Electrolines , 260 Mich App at 167; see
also Burger King Corp v Rudzewicz , 471 US 462, 481-482; 105 S Ct 2174; 85 L Ed 2d 528 (1985).

Nevertheless, I conclude that th e circuit court should have de clined to exercise jurisdiction for reasons similar to those underlying the doctri ne of forum non conveniens, which may be raised sua sponte by the court. Hare v Starr Commonwealth Corp , 291 Mich App 206, 223; 813 NW2d 752 (2011). “ ‘Forum non conveniens’ is defined as the ‘discretionary power of [the] court to decline jurisdiction when convenience of parties and ends of justice would be better served if action were brought and tried in another forum .’ ” Radeljak v DaimlerChrysler-2- Corp , 475 Mich 598, 604; 719 NW2d 40 (2006), quoting Black’s Law Di ctionary (6th ed). “It is
a common-law doctrine that allows a court to decline to hear a case even though the court otherwise has jurisdiction.” Hare , 291 Mich App at 223.

Similar to dismissing an action under the doctrine of forum no n conveniens, Michigan courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction and defer to a sist er-state tribunal as a matter of judicial comity. Id . at 222-223. Such an action by the court fo cuses more on the appropriateness of the forum than the mere convenience of the parties. Radeljak , 475 Mich at 625-626 (M ARKMAN , J., concurring). In deciding whether to decline jurisdiction on this ground, the court should consider which state has a greater interest in the contr oversy and which tribunal has a superior knowledge of the operative facts of the case. See id . at 627-633; see also Hare , 291 Mich App at 224.

The automobile accident that gave rise to the present case occ urred in Florida, plaintiff Beth Ann Smith (Smith) was a resident of Florida at the time of the automobile accident, the underlying matter was litigated in the Florida courts, and defe ndant is a law firm incorporated in Florida. Moreover, plaintiff Goodman Kalahar, P.C. (Goodman) o bviously conducted business in Florida when it represented Smith in the underlying litigati on. The Florida courts had a superior understanding of the issues involved in the case, the work done by each law firm, the nature of the settlement, and the details of the fee-sharing ag reement.

I acknowledge that the fee-sharin g agreement stated that it wa s to be interpreted according to Michigan law. However, the agreement did not cont ain a forum-selection clause
and it is axiomatic that state courts have both the knowledge a nd authority to apply sister-state law. Indeed, state courts regul arly apply the law of sister st ates, and nothing would have prevented the Florida courts fr om applying Michigan law in this instance.

In my opinion, plaintiffs’ resort to the Wayne Circuit Court—g iven that all previous litigation had taken place in Flo rida and the Florida courts po ssessed a superior knowledge of the operative facts of the case—amount ed to little more than forum shopping. I recognize that Smith moved to Michigan in 2006 and that Goodman is based in Michigan . But other than these two facts, there is a minimal nexus between the litigation and this state. Anderson v Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co , 411 Mich 619, 629-630; 309 NW2d 539 (1981). Therefore, I can not conclude that the circuit court was required to defer to plaint iffs’ choice of forum. See id

.
I conclude that the circuit erred by exercising jurisdiction i n this matter rather than abstaining in favor of the more appropriate, sister-state forum . See Hare , 291 Mich App at 214.
I would reverse and remand for e ntry of an order dismissing the action for these reasons.

/s/ Kathleen Jansen