The Michigan Regulation & Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA); Summary disposition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Whether defendant-Village’s licensing decision was a quasi-judicial act; Natural Res Def Council v Department of Envtl Quality; Circuit courts’ original jurisdiction; MCL 600.605; Facial & as-applied challenges to an ordinance; Analogy to zoning matters

Concluding that defendant-Village’s marijuana business licensing decision was not quasi-judicial and that it was not analogous to zoning decisions, the court held that the circuit court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s facial and as-applied challenges to the applicable ordinance for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Thus, it reversed the order granting defendants summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) and remanded for the adjudication of plaintiff’s claims. After the MRTMA was enacted, the Village adopted an ordinance that “authorized two state-licensed marijuana businesses in the Village, and set forth the application requirements. A three-person ad hoc committee” was designated to consider the applications and recommend applicants for approval by the Village Council to receive a license. Plaintiff and the defendants-businesses applied for one or both of the licenses. The ad hoc committee recommended the licenses go to defendants-businesses. Plaintiff filed this suit, raising facial and as-applied challenges to the ordinance in Count I of its complaint. In concluding that the circuit court erred in determining “the Village’s licensing decision was a quasi-judicial act[,]” the court noted that the Village’s procedure for making “its licensing decision did not require or employ any of the hallmarks of the court procedures identified in” Natural Res Def Council. It further noted that “there are no constitutional or statutory provisions denying circuit courts’ jurisdiction over the class of cases that challenges the validity of a local ordinance, and circuit courts have frequently adjudicated cases involving facial challenges and as-applied challenges to local ordinances.” Thus, it concluded that the circuit court here “had original, subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s complaint.” In addition, its analysis that the “case was analogous to a zoning case and that it should be viewed through the lens of the procedures established to deal with zoning matters was flawed.” Rather, this case involved “a municipality exercising statutorily granted authority to draft, adopt, and enforce ordinances in compliance with the MRTMA. It was erroneous for the circuit court to apply zoning case procedures to its analysis” here.