Whether application of the judicial nonintervention doctrine concerning challenges to a private hospital’s staffing decisions deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction; Fraudulent misrepresentation; Innocent misrepresentation; Promises of future conduct; False light invasion of privacy; Porter v. Royal Oak; Statute of limitations; Failure to raise a genuine issue of material fact; Requirement publication was made to a sufficiently large group of people; Offer of judgment sanctions; Interest of justice exception; Tortious interference with contract; Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) claim; Whether plaintiffs realleged the WPA claim in the second amended complaint; MCR 2.113(G); Claim based on public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine; Temporal relationship and causal connection

While the judicial nonintervention doctrine did not impact the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims, plaintiffs’ second amended complaint was properly dismissed because their claims failed as a matter of law. These consolidated cases arose from a business relationship between plaintiffs-physicians and professional corporation, and defendant-affiliated health care corporations. The court held plaintiffs did not present a genuine issue of material fact on their fraudulent misrepresentation claim. Fraud claims cannot generally be based on promises of future conduct and plaintiffs failed to show the bad faith exception applied since they did not show at the time defendants made promises to them, defendants did not intend to fulfill the promises. Plaintiffs’ innocent misrepresentation claim also failed. While plaintiffs’ false light claim arising from publication of a report was not time-barred, they failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact the report was published to a sufficiently large group of people. The court also held the trial court erred in denying defendants’ request for offer of judgment sanctions. The trial court erred in denying the request on the basis it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims and also in relying on the interest of justice exception. The interest of justice exception applies only to attorney fees, not actual costs, and the fact defendants could have moved for summary disposition earlier did not constitute an “unusual circumstance.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.