Opinion ID: 2973254
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State Law Tort Claims Against SCC

Text: Plaintiff asserts several state law tort claims against SCC. SCC sought dismissal of these claims based on the argument that it is entitled to governmental immunity under Michigan law. After setting forth the applicable legal framework for determining whether an entity is entitled to governmental immunity and outlining SCC’s argument, the district court observed that Plaintiff’s arguments against the application of governmental immunity did not appear to apply to SCC itself, but only to the individual SCC defendants. After making this observation, the district court found that “SCC is entitled to absolute immunity as to the state tort claims.” This ruling was not error. In her appellate brief, the only reason Plaintiff sets forth for overturning the district court’s governmental immunity ruling is that in her response to SCC’s motion for summary judgment she actually did argue that SCC itself was not entitled to governmental immunity. The appellate brief cites several sections of the response to supposedly support this argument. However, most of the sections cited put forth arguments which are only relevant to whether each of the individual SCC defendants was entitled to immunity. The one or two places where Plaintiff argued below that none of the defendants were entitled to immunity did not include any arguments addressed specifically to SCC itself. Therefore, the factual basis of Plaintiff’s argument is suspect at best. Even if Plaintiff had challenged whether SCC was entitled to governmental immunity, that fact would not have any relevance to this appeal because the district court did not rely on the perceived absence of any argument from Plaintiff to support its ruling. The district court merely made an observation regarding the paucity of Plaintiff’s argument on the point under consideration and then proceeded to conclude the discussion of the issue by stating its holding that SCC was -8- No. 04-1924 McGee v. Schoolcraft Community College entitled to governmental immunity. The most logical way to read the district court’s opinion is that this holding was based on the court’s application of the relevant law and facts previously set out in a fair amount of detail. Since the district court did not rely on Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the governmental immunity argument, any mistake it might have made in characterizing Plaintiff’s arguments, or lack thereof, did not have any impact on its holding. In her reply appellate brief Plaintiff sets forth the additional argument that SCC is not entitled to governmental immunity because under Michigan law there is no such immunity for intentional torts or actions not taken in good faith. Even if this argument had been properly raised, it would fail because the exceptions to governmental immunity Plaintiff cites are only relevant when determining whether an individual governmental employee is entitled to governmental immunity. The Michigan Supreme Court has held that “governmental agencies ha[ve] a broad grant of immunity while, in contrast, the immunity extended to individuals is far less.” Sudul v. City of Hamtramck, 562 N.W.2d 478, 482 (Mich. 1997) (emphasis in original). In the course of determining the scope of a governmental agency’s immunity, the Michigan Supreme Court has held that “[t]here is no intentional tort exception to governmental immunity.” Smith v. Dept’t of Public Health, 410 N.W.2d 749, (Mich. 1987), aff’d sub nom, Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). Nor does the applicable statute or case law cited by Plaintiff evidence any good faith requirement in order for a government agency to be entitled to governmental immunity. Instead, Michigan courts have held that the state’s governmental tort liability statute provides broad immunity for governmental agencies and that exceptions to that broad immunity must be narrowly construed. See, e.g., Glancy v. City of Roseville, 577 N.W.2d 897, 900 (Mich. 1998). Plaintiff has -9- No. 04-1924 McGee v. Schoolcraft Community College failed to point to any legitimate exception to the broad governmental immunity SCC enjoys. Therefore, the district court did not err when it held that SCC was entitled to governmental immunity on the state law tort claims.