If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

MONIQUE JEWELL,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

March 21, 2024

v No. 363788

Wayne Circuit Court

MGM GRAND DETROIT, LLC, LC No. 21-012872-AV

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GADOLA, C.J., and K. F. KELLY and MURRAY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, MGM Grand Detroit, LLC, appeals by leave granted the circuit court’s order 

denying defendant’s application for leave to appeal the order of the district court that denied 

defendant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4), of plaintiff Monique Jewell’s complaint 

alleging unjust enrichment and fraudulent misrepresentation. We vacate the circuit court’s order

and remand. 

I. FACTS

The facts of this case are largely undisputed. On October 20, 2017 and October 21, 2017, 

plaintiff gambled at defendant’s casino in Detroit after entering the casino with proper 

identification. During that time, she placed bets at various tables and machines and lost money to 

the casino. Eventually, plaintiff won a jackpot of approximately $17,000 while playing “Texas 

Hold’em.” When she attempted to claim her winnings, however, defendant informed plaintiff that 

she had been banned from the casino since 2011, that she therefore was trespassing in the casino,

and that as a result she was prohibited from claiming her winnings. 

On October 24, 2017, plaintiff submitted a Patron Dispute Form to the Michigan Gaming 

Control Board (the Board). Plaintiff asserted that defendant did not inform her that she was banned 

from the casino before October 21, 2017, that defendant allowed her to enter the casino and gamble 

on October 20-21, 2017, as long as she was losing money to the casino, and that defendant claimed 

she was trespassing only after she won the jackpot. In response to her dispute form, Board 

Regulation Officer Robert Gambrell, by letter dated December 11, 2017, informed plaintiff:
-2-

A “Patron complaint” means a complaint a patron has regarding winnings and 

losses or the conduct of gambling at a casino, R 432.1106(b). The matters you 

describe are not subject to regulation under the Michigan Gaming Control & 

Revenue Act or the Administrative Rules promulgated pursuant thereto. This 

means that irrespective of the validity of your complaint, the matters you raise are 

beyond the powers of the Board to address. . . . The Board has no authority to award 

any money or other relief directly to a patron. 

Plaintiff thereafter initiated this action against defendant by filing a complaint in the district 

court alleging unjust enrichment and fraudulent misrepresentation. Defendant moved for summary 

disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4), asserting that the district court lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction over the dispute, which defendant argued fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the 

Michigan Gaming Control Board. The district court denied defendant’s motion, holding that it 

had exclusive jurisdiction of the dispute alleged in the complaint under MCL 600.8301(1), in light 

of the Board’s determination that it did not have jurisdiction. 

Defendant sought leave to appeal in the circuit court, challenging the district court’s order. 

Defendant again argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over whether plaintiff was entitled 

to collect winnings from the casino, which defendant argued fell within the exclusive jurisdiction 

of the Board. The circuit court denied defendant’s application, reasoning that the dispute presented 

by plaintiff’s complaint was not whether she won the $17,000 but whether the casino was justified 

in determining that she was a trespasser. This Court granted defendant’s application for leave to 

appeal the order of the circuit court. Jewell v MGM Grand Detroit, LLC, unpublished order of the 

Court of Appeals, issued April 25, 2023 (Docket No. 363788).

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that the district court erred by denying defendant’s motion for 

summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4). Defendant argues that the district court lacked 

subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff’s claim, which defendant argues falls under the 

exclusive jurisdiction of the Michigan Gaming Control Board. We agree. 

Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. 

Davis v BetMGM, LLC, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 363116); 

slip op at 3. We also review de novo a trial court’s decision to grant or deny summary disposition,

Meemic Ins Co v Fortson, 506 Mich 287, 296; 954 NW2d 115 (2020), and the interpretation of 

statutes and legal doctrines, Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573, 578-579; 751 NW2d 493 (2008). This 

Court also reviews de novo the circuit court’s review of a district court’s order. Noll v Ritzer, 317 

Mich App 506, 510; 895 NW2d 192 (2016).

Subject matter jurisdiction describes a court’s “abstract power to determine a case of a 

particular kind or character.” Zelasko v Charter Twp of Bloomfield, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ 

NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 359002); slip op at 7. When a trial court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction, summary disposition is warranted under MCR 2.116(C)(4). Winkler v Marist Fathers 

of Detroit, Inc, 500 Mich 327, 333; 901 NW2d 566 (2017). Summary disposition under MCR 

2.116(C)(4) also is proper when a plaintiff fails to exhaust administrative remedies. See Citizens 

for Common Sense in Gov’t v Attorney General, 243 Mich App 43, 50; 620 NW2d 546 (2000). 
-3-

In Michigan, “[t]he district court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil actions when the amount 

in controversy does not exceed $25,000.00.” MCL 600.8301(1). However, in Michigan, legalized 

gambling is controlled by statute. See Taxpayers of Mich Against Casinos v Michigan, 478 Mich 

99, 121; 732 NW2d 487 (2007) (MARKMAN, J., dissenting). Relevant to this case, the Michigan 

Gaming Control and Revenue Act (MGCRA), MCL 432.201 et seq., regulates casino gambling in 

Detroit. Parise v Detroit Entertainment, LLC, 295 Mich App 25, 28; 811 NW2d 98 (2011). The 

MGCRA established the Michigan Gaming Control Board, MCL 432.204a, and provides for the 

Board’s jurisdiction as follows:

(1) The board has jurisdiction over and shall supervise all gambling operations 

governed by this act. The board has all powers necessary and proper to fully and 

effectively execute this act, including, but not limited to, the authority to do all of 

the following: 

* * * 

(b) Have jurisdiction over and supervise casino gambling operations authorized by 

this act and all persons in casinos where gambling operations are conducted under 

this act. 

* * * 

(d) Investigate alleged violations of this act or rules promulgated by the board and 

to take appropriate disciplinary action against a licensee or any other person, or 

institute appropriate legal action for enforcement, or both. [MCL 432.204a.]

The MGCRA and the rules issued by the Board “apply to all persons who are licensed or 

otherwise participate in gaming under this act.” MCL 432.203(4). The Michigan Administrative 

Code provides rules applicable to the Board and includes dispute procedures. A patron dispute is 

defined by Mich Admin Code, R 432.1106(b) as “a dispute a patron has regarding winnings or 

losses or the conduct of gambling at a casino.” Mich Admin Code, R 432.11502 provides for a 

patron to file a patron dispute form with the Board, which then determines whether the dispute 

requires investigation. Mich Admin Code, R 432.11503 provides:

(1) Following receipt of a completed patron dispute form, the board will determine 

if a patron dispute requires investigation. 

(2) The board may decline to investigate the patron dispute for the following 

reasons:

(a) The patron dispute form was not received within 28 days from the incident date.

(b) The incident does not involve winnings or losses.

(c) The incident does not involve the conduct of gambling.

(d) Any other reason deemed appropriate by the board. 
-4-

(3) If the board determines that an investigation is necessary, then the board will 

conduct an investigation for the purpose of deciding whether to take disciplinary 

action. 

If the board decides to take disciplinary action against a licensee, Mich Admin Code, R 

432.11108(2) provides that the board may suspend or remove the licensee’s license, impose a civil 

penalty, and take “any other action deemed necessary by the board to ensure compliance with the 

act or these rules.” 

The Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.201 et seq., provides that a party “aggrieved 

by a final decision or order in a contested case” of a state agency may appeal that decision in the 

circuit court. MCL 24.301. Similarly, the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.101 et seq., provides 

for judicial review of “any order, decision, or opinion of any state board,” through appeal to the 

circuit court. MCL 600.631.

When the Legislature expresses an intent to make the jurisdiction of an administrative 

agency exclusive, the courts are not permitted to exercise jurisdiction over that same area. Citizens 

for Common Sense, 243 Mich App at 50. This Court has held that by enacting the MGCRA, the 

Legislature intended to vest the Board with exclusive jurisdiction “over all matters relating in any 

way to the licensing, regulating, monitoring, and control of the non-Indian casino industry,” 

despite the term “exclusive jurisdiction” not appearing in the Act. Papas v Gaming Control Bd, 

257 Mich App 647, 657-659; 669 NW2d 326 (2003). This Court also has determined that, as a 

result of the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction, a litigant may not pursue common-law claims 

inconsistent with the MGCRA. Kraft v Detroit Entertainment, LLC, 261 Mich App 534, 543-551; 

683 NW2d 200 (2004); MCL 432.203(3) (Any other law inconsistent with the act does not apply 

to casino gaming as provided in the act). 

In Kraft, this Court described the “expansive and exclusive authority” of the Board to

“regulate all aspects of casino gambling,” observing that the Board’s rules set forth the procedure 

for a patron to file a complaint against a casino licensee. Kraft, 261 Mich App at 549-551, citing 

Mich Admin Code, R 432.11501 to 432.11503. Under the rules, the Board decides whether a 

patron dispute requires investigation, Mich Admin Code, R 432.11503(1), and whether to take 

disciplinary action after completing an investigation, Mich Admin Code R 432.11503(3). In the 

event that disciplinary action is required, the Board may revoke casino licenses and impose fines 

for fraudulent conduct. Kraft, 261 Mich App at 551, citing MCL 432.204a(1).

In this case, defendant contends that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiff’s 

claim, and further, that plaintiff was required to exhaust her administrative remedies before seeking 

relief from the courts. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that, when 

an administrative remedy exists, a party must exhaust the administrative relief process before 

bringing the claim to court. Connell v Lima Twp, 336 Mich App 263, 282; 970 NW2d 354 (2021). 

The requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies is intended to avoid premature court 

adjudication or review of administrative action. See Paragon Props Co v City of Novi, 452 Mich 

568, 579 n 12; 550 NW2d 772 (1996). Here, plaintiff submitted a patron dispute form to the Board, 

which responded by letter stating that plaintiff’s claim was “beyond the powers of the Board to 

address” because the matters were not “subject to regulation” under the MGCRA or attendant 

rules, and the Board lacked authority to “award any money or other relief directly to a patron.” 
-5-

Defendant contends that plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by appealing the 

decision of the Board to the circuit court. 

The response of the Board in this case mirrors that of the Board in Davis v BetMGM, LLC, 

___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 363116). In Davis, the plaintiff alleged 

that an online gaming website operated by the defendant informed her she had won, but the 

defendant thereafter would not pay her the winnings. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant 

alleging fraud, conversion, and breach of contract. In Davis, the Board had determined that it 

lacked the authority to resolve her dispute. Id. at ___; slip op at 2. This Court determined that the 

Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA), MCL 432.301 et seq., provided the exclusive remedy for 

plaintiff’s common-law claims that were inconsistent with LIGA. Davis, ___ Mich App at ___; 

slip op at 6. This Court reasoned that the LIGA contains a provision similar to that of the MGCRA 

discussed in Kraft, that “[a] law that is inconsistent with this act does not apply to internet gaming 

as provided for by this act,” MCL 432.304(3). Id. This Court observed that the plaintiff’s claims 

were like those in Kraft, because they alleged, in part, fraud and deceit, and they therefore “conflict 

with the MGCB’s authority under LIGA to regulate all aspects of internet gaming.” Id. at 7. This 

Court in Davis stated that “it is clear that the MGCB had the power under LIGA to investigate 

disputes such as plaintiff’s, to determine whether a violation of LIGA or the rules promulgated 

under it had occurred, and to require corrective actions from an internet gaming provider.” Id.

In this case, defendant contends that plaintiff’s claim for unpaid winnings similarly was

preempted because the Board had exclusive jurisdiction and plaintiff failed to exhaust the 

administrative remedy by direct appeal of the Board’s decision to the circuit court. Published 

opinions of this Court issued on or after November 1, 1990, are precedentially binding, MCR 

7.215(J)(1). In light of this Court’s holdings in Kraft and Papas, as well as this Court’s analogous 

decision in Davis, we agree that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, despite the 

Board’s letter advising plaintiff that it did not have authority to resolve her claim. Plaintiff’s 

complaint alleged unjust enrichment and fraudulent misrepresentation, claims preempted by the 

MGCRA’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the Board regarding patron disputes. See Kraft, 261 

Mich App at 551; see also Davis, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 7. When the Legislature has 

provided exclusive jurisdiction to a state agency, as in this case, “courts must decline to exercise 

jurisdiction until all administrative proceedings are complete.” Papas, 257 Mich App at 657. 

We note with interest the observation in Davis, ___ Mich App at ___ (FEENEY, J. 

dissenting), that under the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA), MCL 432.301 et seq., the Board 

apparently has neither authority nor an obligation to resolve a patron’s claim that he or she is owed 

winnings that are being wrongfully withheld by a licensee. Discussing § 9 of the LIGA, MCL 

432.309, the dissenting opinion in Davis observed:

The statute provides an exhaustive list [of the Board’s authority]. But a review of 

that list reflects extensive authority over the licensing of on-line casinos, an 

establishment of rules by which those licenses are obtained (and perhaps revoked), 

casino operations, and procedures for sanctioning on-line casinos that violate the 

statute and rules. What is not found in the list is the authority, much less the 

obligation, to resolve individual patron disputes such as that presented here. 
-6-

. . . [T]he Gaming Board has the authority and responsibility to investigate 

defendant over this incident and determine what, if any, licensing sanctions are 

appropriate. But plaintiff’s suit does not seek licensing sanctions against defendant; 

plaintiff seeks payment of the money that defendant’s gaming platform told her that 

she had won. [Davis, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 4-5 (FEENEY, J, dissenting) 

(footnotes omitted).] 

As in Davis, plaintiff in this case seeks payment from defendant of amounts allegedly won 

from a defendant licensee. The Board determined that it has no authority to resolve plaintiff’s 

claim for payment; a reading of the MGCRA supports the conclusion that although the Board has 

exclusive jurisdiction of a patron dispute, the Legislature has given the Board no authority to 

resolve a dispute by ordering a casino to pay a patron. As in Davis, plaintiff appears to be left 

without a forum in which to pursue her claimed winnings from defendant. When the Legislature 

has declined to address a concern by including a provision within a statute, however, courts are

not empowered to insert a provision into the statute to address the concern. LeFever v Matthews, 

336 Mich App 651, 679; 971 NW2d 672 (2021). As a result, whether and how a patron might 

pursue a claim for winnings from a casino is a question left to the authority of the Legislature. 

The district court erred by denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition under 

MCR 2.116(C)(4) because plaintiff’s claim falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board, and 

the circuit court thus erred by denying defendant leave to appeal. We vacate the circuit court’s 

order and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, directing 

the circuit court to reverse the district court’s order. We do not retain jurisdiction. 

/s/ Michael F. Gadola 

/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly

/s/ Christopher M. Murray