Class certification timing; MCR 3.501(B); Sewage disposal system event exception; MCL 691.1417(3); Causation; MCL 691.1417(3)(e); Inverse condemnation; Employee immunity; MCL 691.1407(2); Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA); Detroit Water & Sewerage Department (DWSD)

[In an order, the court vacated its prior opinion in this case (see eJournal # 84477 in the 10/16/25 edition). It issued an amended opinion with the order.] The court largely reversed the dismissal of claims arising from sewer backups, holding that key summary-disposition rulings were premature and that certain pleading errors required correction on remand. But it affirmed dismissal of inverse-condemnation claims and some municipal liability claims as pleaded. The consolidated cases stemmed from a rain event in which “untreated wastewater” entered plaintiffs’ properties. The court addressed (1) the Dubin plaintiffs’ proposed class action under the sewage-disposal system event statute and (2) the Johnson plaintiffs’ individual cases asserting statutory, inverse-condemnation, and employee-liability theories. As to the Dubin plaintiffs, the court held the trial court erred in concluding they waived their right to seek class certification. Although MCR 3.501 generally requires a certification motion within 91 days, the parties entered a stipulated order adjourning class-certification deadlines, no defendant filed the notice that would make class allegations “deemed stricken,” and plaintiffs’ reliance on the stipulated order was at least “excusable neglect.” The court also held there is “no court rule” barring “motions by concurrence” where the concurrence is clear enough to put plaintiffs on notice and provides a fair opportunity to respond. On the merits under MCL 691.1417(3), the court held dismissal on causation was premature. Defendants relied heavily on rainfall/capacity evidence and sought to treat flooding as “inevitable,” but discovery had not meaningfully proceeded because defendants resisted it pending immunity motions. The court concluded further discovery “might reveal the extent to which particular defects may have contributed,” including whether “but for” specific defects one or more properties would not have backed up. It also held the trial court improperly disposed of defect issues not actually raised by defendant-GLWA’s motion. As to defendant-Detroit, the court affirmed dismissal to the extent claims were premised on defects in the leased-to-GLWA regional system because Detroit lacked “legal authority” at the time of the event to “repair, correct, or remedy” defects there. But it reversed dismissal as to alleged defects in Detroit’s local sewer system, where record evidence suggested potential design/maintenance shortcomings and further discovery was warranted. As to the Johnson plaintiffs, the court affirmed dismissal of inverse condemnation claims because allegations sounded in “inaction and omissions,” not “affirmative actions directly aimed” at plaintiffs’ properties. It reversed dismissal of claims against defendants-John Does 1–10 because the statutory exclusivity language applies to governmental agencies, and discovery on causation and “gross negligence” was not reasonably available before dismissal. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.