Court Opinion

ID: 9686986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:13:13.293358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:23.556877
License: Public Domain

Allen, P. J.
(concurring). I concur in the opinion' of Judge Riley. I write separately only to harmonize my vote here with my concurrence in Grigg v Michigan National Bank, 72 Mich App 358; 249 *222NW2d 701 (1976), which is criticized in the majority opinion.
Our GCR 1963, 208 was copied from an earlier version of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FR Civ P) 23. The Federal rule was amended in 1966 to add, inter alia, an express requirement that issues common to all members of the class "predominate” before a spurious class action may be maintained. Michigan did not follow the Federal lead; consequently, our Rule 208 remains substantially identical to the pre-amendment version of FR Civ P 23 from which it was copied.
The Grigg opinion effectively read a predominance requirement into Rule 208. That issue itself was insignificant in Grigg, but the technique used was important. Basically, we looked to the Federal experience — both case law and amendments — for guidance in interpreting Rule 208. We ended by concluding that several requirements, including predominance:
" * * * are stated in the Federal class action rule, and we believe by implication, common sense and reason in the Michigan rule.” 72 Mich App at 365.
Judge Riley’s opinion in this case, while expressing disapproval of the predominance requirement, nevertheless assumes its presence and holds that it is satisfied. I agree.
The principal cause of this concurring opinion is to defend the technique of interpreting our Rule 208 by learning from the Federal experience. While I do not think that we are legally bound to copy Federal decisions and amendments, I do think that the option should be available where it is not clearly foreclosed by the language of our own rule.
*223Grigg cited Northview Construction Co v St Clair Shores, 395 Mich 497; 236 NW2d 396 (1975), as authority for both the technique of adopting Federal amendments via case decisions and for the narrower rule that common issues must predominate in a spurious class action. Northview announced a predominance requirement for Rule 208 and cited as authority Partain v First National Bank of Montgomery, 59 FRD 56 (MD Ala, 1973). Significantly, Partain is a Federal case which interprets the present FR Civ P 23, i.e., the amended version which contains an express predominance requirement.
Judge Riley’s opinion correctly points out that Northview was initially decided by a 3-1 vote and, on more recent rehearing, the Court reached a 3-3 deadlock. Northview Construction Co v St Clair Shores (On Rehearing), 399 Mich 184; 249 NW2d 290 (1976). But I disagree with her conclusion that the changed vote destroys the precedential value of Northview. Requiring predominance of common issues makes maintenance of a class action more difficult. The original majority in Northview wanted to allow the class action to continue. It is unlikely that the two additional justices who voted on rehearing to bar the class action would favor easing the requirements for such actions.
With the reservations already stated, I concur in Judge Riley’s opinion because I do not believe that it is necessary to reject Grigg in order to allow this class action to proceed.