Jurisdiction over collection of winnings from the casino; Michigan Gaming Control Revenue Act (MGCRA); Davis v BetMGM, LLC; Kraft v Detroit Entm't, LLC; Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA)

On remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of its “reversal of this Court’s decision in Davis and its clarification of this Court’s decision in Kraft,” the court concluded “that the Legislature did not intend to abrogate the common-law claims of plaintiff in this case, which are not inconsistent with the MGCRA.” Thus, it affirmed “the judgment of the circuit court, which denied defendant’s application for leave to appeal the order of the district court that denied defendant summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims.” The case involved the claim of plaintiff-Jewell, alleging unjust enrichment and fraudulent misrepresentation against defendant-MGM. It contended “that the circuit court erred by denying its application for leave to appeal the order of the district court, arguing that the district court erred by denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition of plaintiff’s complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(4).” Defendant argued “that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff’s claim, which [it asserted] falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Michigan Gaming Control Board (the Board).” The court concluded “that plaintiff’s pursuit of her common-law claims in the district court was not ‘inconsistent’ with the comprehensive statutory scheme of the MGCRA.” This was “particularly true because, as in Davis, the Board in this case ‘expressly disclaimed any role in resolving the merits of disputes’ between patrons and casinos.” The court found as “with the Supreme Court’s review of the LIGA in Davis, [its] review of the MGCRA does not reveal a grant to the Board of either the authority or the obligation to resolve individual patron disputes such as the one plaintiff presented in this case.” The court did “not perceive an intention by the Legislature to abrogate a patron’s common-law claims that are not inconsistent with the MGCRA.” In addition, having held “that the Board lacked the authority to resolve plaintiff’s common-law claims and that plaintiff’s common-law claims in this case were not abrogated by nor inconsistent with the MGCRA,” the court rejected “defendant’s argument that plaintiff in this case was obligated to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing her common-law claims in the district court.”