Unjust enrichment & fraudulent misrepresentation claims arising from gambling at a casino; Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction; The exclusive jurisdiction of the Michigan Gaming Control Board; Kraft v Detroit Entm’t, LLC; Papas v Gaming Control Bd; Davis v BetMGM, LLC; The Michigan Gaming Control & Revenue Act (MGCRA); MCL 432.204a; MCL 432.203(4); “Patron dispute” (MI Admin Code, R 432.1106(b)); Dispute process; R 432.11502 & 432.11503; The Administrative Procedures Act; Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Holding that plaintiff-casino patron’s unjust enrichment and fraudulent misrepresentation claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Michigan Gaming Control Board, the court concluded the district court erred in denying defendant-casino’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4). Thus, the court vacated the circuit court’s order denying defendant leave to appeal and remanded to the circuit court with instructions to reverse the district court’s order. Defendant asserted that plaintiff’s claims fell under the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction. In light of its rulings in Kraft and Papas, as well as its analogous decision in Davis, the court agreed “that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, despite the Board’s letter advising plaintiff that it did not have authority to resolve her claim. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged unjust enrichment and fraudulent misrepresentation, claims preempted by the MGCRA’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the Board regarding patron disputes.” The court concluded that, as in Davis, plaintiff here sought “payment from defendant of amounts allegedly won from a defendant licensee. The Board determined that it has no authority to resolve plaintiff’s claim for payment; a reading of the MGCRA supports the conclusion that although the Board has exclusive jurisdiction of a patron dispute, the Legislature has given the Board no authority to resolve a dispute by ordering a casino to pay a patron. As in Davis, plaintiff appears to be left without a forum in which to pursue her claimed winnings from defendant.” But the court noted that when the Legislature declines “to address a concern by including a provision within a statute, . . . courts are not empowered to insert a provision into the statute to address the concern.”