Action seeking injunctive relief to improve the quality of indigent criminal defense representation in Michigan; Class certification; Henry v. Dow Chem.; MCR 3.501(A)(1) & (2); The "superiority" element; Whether the trial court properly ordered discovery; MCR 3.501(B)(3)(b); Whether the defendants were entitled to summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8); The "law of the case" doctrine; Schumacher v. Department of Natural Res. (After Remand); Johnson v. White; Foreman v. Foreman; Applicability of "judicial estoppel"; Szyszlo v. Akowitz; Paschke v. Retool Indus.; "Standing"; The "prudential" standing test; Lansing Sch. Educ. Ass'n v. Lansing Bd. of Educ.; Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc.; Sinicropi v. Mazurek; Stare decisis; Tenneco Inc. v. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co.; Res judicata; Stoudemire v. Stoudemire; Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Keeler Brass Co.; "Privity"; Washington v. Sinai Hosp. of Greater Detroit

The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendants' (collectively, the State) motion for summary disposition on the issue of class certification and instead ordering discovery. The court concluded that the trial court was obeying the Michigan Supreme Court's order directing it to consider the issue in light of Henry. Further, the law of the case doctrine applied as to whether the plaintiffs pleaded a proper cause of action and thus, the trial court did not err in denying the State's summary disposition motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8). The court also ruled that the trial court properly denied the State's summary disposition motion as to standing, and rejected its argument that res judicata barred plaintiffs' claim. Plaintiffs sought, via a class action, injunctive relief to improve the quality of indigent criminal defense representation in Michigan. Their proposed class was comprised of present and future indigent criminal defendants subject to appointed counsel through the indigent criminal defense system. After prior appellate proceedings, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court. On remand, the trial court held a status conference and decided to allow the parties to conduct discovery before deciding plaintiffs' class certification motion. However, before any deposition was taken, the State unsuccessfully renewed its motion for summary disposition. The court noted that the trial court did not certify plaintiffs' action as a class action, but instead only denied the dispositive motion until discovery could be completed. It also did not abuse its discretion by postponing the class certification issue until discovery could be completed. "Under MCR 3.501(B)(3)(b), the trial court could postpone the class-certification question pending discovery. Thus, its decision to do so did not fall outside the range of principled outcomes." The court also concluded that the trial court's denial of the State's motion on the basis that it was premature did not contravene the Supreme Court's order. As to whether plaintiffs pleaded a proper cause of action, the court previously held that they pleaded causes of action for which declaratory and injunctive relief could be granted, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The State did not establish "a material change of fact or an intervening change in the law that would allow" the court to avoid application of the law of the case doctrine. Further, judicial estoppel did not bar plaintiffs from relying on the law of the case doctrine to preclude reconsideration of the State's MCR 2.116(C)(8) motion. The court also rejected the State's claim that the intervening change in the law of standing under Lansing Schools precluded application of the law of the case doctrine. Finally, the court held that the issues raised in this civil case about the State's "alleged deprivation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights through a deficient indigent criminal defense system were not and could not have been raised in the plaintiffs' individual criminal prosecutions." Affirmed.