Breach of contract; Enforceability of a noncompete agreement (NCA); MCL 445.774a(1); Coates v Bastian Bros, Inc; Compliance with a remand order; Motion to reopen discovery; Scope of the remand order

The court concluded that the trial court failed to comply with a prior remand order when it did not undertake a reasonableness analysis of the NCA at issue. But it held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in “denying plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery to pursue an issue not within the scope of” the remand order. In its prior opinion in the case, the court stated the trial court erred in “failing to apply a reasonableness analysis to the noncompete clause in light of [defendant-]Vanderbush’s challenge to the clause,” and it instructed “the trial court on remand to ‘consider whether plaintiff has met its burden of showing that the noncompete clause is enforceable, and, if so, to what extent under the circumstances[.]’” The trial court on remand found that plaintiff failed to meet “its burden of showing the validity of the noncompete clause because plaintiff failed to respond to Vanderbush’s assertion that the NCA was unenforceable. The trial court concluded that plaintiff conceded that the noncompete clause was unenforceable by failing to respond to Vanderbush’s challenge to the NCA’s enforceability.” But it failed to “undertake on remand an analysis of the reasonableness of the noncompete agreement, the absence of which” the court identified as an error in its original ruling. This failure overlooked the task for which the court remanded. As to plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery, it sought to do so “to enable it to raise additional allegations that Vanderbush violated the NCA” and this was an issue outside the scope of the remand order. The court vacated the trial court’s order granting Vanderbush summary disposition on the breach of contract claim, and remanded.