# Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
April 14, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 130190 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan IN RE CERTIFIED QU ESTION FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

________________ _______________ __________/

PAUL VELIZ, et al, Plaintiffs,

and

DAVID A. ABNEY, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 130190 CA-9: 04-16843 ND Cal: CV-03-1180-SBA CINTAS CORPORATION, et al, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e question certified by the Unite d States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is considered, and the Court respectfully declines the request to answer the certified question.

Y OUNG , J., concurs and st ates as follows:

I concur in the Court's deci sion to decline the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to answer its question concerning our Minimum Wage Law, MCL 408.381 et seq

. I have previously expostulated at lengt h concerning why I belie ve that this Court lacks the constitutional author ity to provide such "advisory opinion s" to the federal courts. See In re Certified Question ( Melson v Prime Ins Syndicate

, Inc ), 472 Mich 1225 (2005) (Young, J., conc urring). While I rely on all th e reasons I have laboriously, but thus far unpersuasively, stated previously on th e question of our lack of authority, I write here to note, not only does this Court lack constitutional au thority to provid e an “advisory lesson on Michigan law” for the Ninth Ci rcuit, but that the parties who sought2

certification by the Ninth Ci rcuit have failed even to bother to comply with the requirements of MCR 7.305(B). That rule outlines procedu res by which a federal court may seek such gratuit ous advice from this Court. The parties apparently have so little regard for our procedures that they failed to follow (or ignored) the oblig ation of our rule to file conforming briefs and a joint appe ndix with this Cour t (MCR 7.305[B][3]).

Admittedly, these are "mere" procedures that impede the m arch to provide a federal court a didactic exegesis on our law. However, failure to ab ide by the controlling rules of the state court concerning certified que stions has been a suffi cient basis for other state courts to decline a federal court's request to answer a certified question. See Diamond Club v Ins Co of North America , 984 F2d 746, 747-748, (CA 6, 1993) (Ohio Supreme Court refused to answer a certified question because the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to comply w ith Ohio’s rules.).

We hold parties over whom we actually do have jurisdiction to meticulous compliance with our ru les. I see no reason why we sh ould accord parties over which we have no authority to a lesser standard of compliance. This alone is a sufficient reason for me to decline to answer the Ninth Circuit's certifie d question in this case.

Finally, I appreciate my dissenting collea gue’s concerns that federal courts should not misconstrue Michigan law or dis respect our state’s judicial system. 1 However laudatory these prudential cons iderations may be, I do not be lieve they are a legitimate basis for exceeding our constitu tionally limited “judicial power.” As I have stated elsewhere, the limit on our judi cial power precludes this Cour t from issuing nonbinding advisory opinions. In re Certified Question, supra at 1225. Hence, this Court has not “default[ed] on its responsibility” by adhering to the constitutional constraints imposed by the people of this state. Rather, we have hono red our responsibility.

K ELLY , J., would answer the certified question.

M ARKMAN , J., dissents and states as follows:

For the reasons set forth in my statement in In re Certified Questions, 472 Mich 1225 (2005) -- in particular out of a sense of comity with th e certifying court and in order to maintain the integrity of Michigan law -- I would hold hearings and promptly answer

1 I note that this Court is obliged to cons true federal law without the assistance of a certification process. Th at we lack such a vehicle in no way undermines our obligation to apply federal law faithfully in our cases. I see no basis for concluding that federal courts will be less dedicated to their task than we are to ours. Therefore, it is not apparent to me why our decision not to answer the certified question is detrim ental and deleterious to our federal structure._______________________________________ __ 3

the certified question submitted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Ap peals. By choosing not to do so, this Court defaults on its responsibility to exercise its judicial powers in support of Michigan's sovereignty within our Constitution's sy stem of federalism.

Having already deterred the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals from seeking the guidance of this Court con cerning the meaning of Michig an law -- guidance routinely offered by nearly every other s upreme court in the union -- it is apparently now this Court's determination to deter all oth er federal courts in a similar fashion.

The confusion of on e of my colleagues is reflected in a concurring statement that seems to chastise the Ninth Circuit for its impositions upon this Court in certifying a question. Instead of recognizing that the Ni nth Circuit has sought to accord respect to the complementary roles of the federal and state judiciaries within ou r constitutional system, and to defer to this state in its understanding of its own la ws, the concurring Justice is troubled that the Ninth Circu it would seek "gratuitous advi ce" from this Court, rather than just plowing ahead with its own interpretation of Mi chigan law and ignoring the judicial process established by the people of this state for giving meaning to their laws.

d0411 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
April 14, 2006
Clerk