Subject matter jurisdiction; MCR 2.116(C)(4); Amount in controversy; Core Values Constr, LLC v Sheehan’s on the Green, Inc; Meisner Law Group, PC v Weston Downs Condo Ass’n; Claims subject to arbitration; MCR 2.116(C)(7); Motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9); MCR 2.111(F)(2); Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)

The court held that because plaintiff failed to present “any evidence to substantiate that damages in this case exceeded $25,000, the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his case and properly dismissed it under MCR 2.116(C)(4).” Even if his “motion could survive MCR 2.116(C)(4) on the basis of his complaint and settlement offer alone, this case was still properly dismissed under MCR 2.116(C)(7).” Further, his motion under MCR 2.116(C)(9) was properly denied. The court noted that “plaintiff’s complaint stated broadly that he ‘suffered damages in excess of $25,000’ on the breach of contract and civil conspiracy claims, and asked that the circuit court award him the costs and legal fees incurred. But like Core Values Constr and Meisner, his subsequent pleadings do not establish how breaching the Settlement Agreement, which puts the amount in controversy at no more than $10,000, cost him an additional $15,000 in damages.” In a settlement offer to defendants in 11/24, he “sought $75,000 in damages for ‘ailments and hospitalization during the period [p]laintiff was trying to get justice,’ but did not submit any medical records to the circuit court in response to” defendant-AFSCME’s (C)(4) motion, “or in any supplemental pleadings. Plaintiff also failed to file initial disclosures which could have substantiated his alleged damages. As the circuit court stated, plaintiff failed to come forward with any facts supporting his claim of over $25,000 in damages. Although ‘courts do not require absolute certainty from the parties when calculating the amount in controversy,’ and ‘the amount in-controversy calculation is simply a reasonable estimate based on the parties’ pleadings,’” the court found that “nothing in the record substantiates $15,000 in additional damages” to allow his “breach-of-contract claim to reach the circuit court’s jurisdictional threshold.” Also, because “the clear and unambiguous language of the Settlement Agreement evidences an agreement to arbitrate, and a decision on whether the agreement was breached could only arise from interpretation of the agreement, plaintiff’s remedy is arbitration. The IIED and civil conspiracy claims were also based on [his] allegation that defendants breached the settlement agreement, and are claims related to the matters contained in [it]. Thus, the circuit court did not err in dismissing all of plaintiff’s claims under MCR 2.116(C)(7).” Affirmed.