Statute of limitations (SOL); Conversion; Fraudulent misrepresentation; Breach of contract; Unjust enrichment; Breach of fiduciary duty; Limited liability company (LLC) member oppression; MCL 450.4515(1); Civil conspiracy; Fraudulent concealment; MCL 600.5855

Holding that plaintiff-Balsamo filed this action after the applicable SOLs expired, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendants. The wrongful conduct that was the basis for Balsamo’s claims occurred in 6/14, “when defendants refused to restore his membership interest in” defendant-Dalcoma, an LLC organized to own and operate a multi-unit commercial property, “after he cured his immigration issues.” As to Count I of his amended complaint, the court concluded that because he did not file his claim until 1/22/21, the trial court did not err in holding that his conversion claim was barred by the three-year SOL. As to Count II, the court determined that because “defendants failed to restore Balsamo’s membership interest when he fulfilled his part of the agreement in [6/14], the trial court did not err in concluding that the fraudulent misrepresentation claim accrued in” 6/14 and thus, was also time-barred. As to Count IV, the court found that because “defendants failed to restore Balsamo’s membership interest when he fulfilled his part of the agreement in [6/14], the trial court did not err in concluding that the breach of contract claim accrued in” 6/14 and was likewise time-barred. Also, as to Counts V and VI, the court held that the trial court did not err in concluding that the unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary claims accrued in 6/14 and were time-barred. As to Count VII, the court determined that accepting “Balsamo’s allegations as true, defendants’ substantial interference took place in 2009 when defendants colluded to extinguish his interest in Dalcoma, and in 2014 when defendants did not restore his membership interest after he became a United States citizen.” Given that both dates were well outside the three-year SOL, the court found “that the trial court did not err in concluding that Balsamo’s member oppression claim was time-barred.” Further, as to Count VIII, “the trial court properly dismissed all of Balsamo’s claims that purportedly supported his civil conspiracy claim.” Thus, it also properly dismissed his civil conspiracy claim. Lastly, Balsamo failed to plead “a claim of fraudulent concealment that would have tolled the applicable” SOLs for his claims.