Rodney Woods v. City of Saginaw

Michigan Supreme Court

Rodney Woods v. City of Saginaw

DecidedOctober 21, 2020

Docket160597

StatusPublished

This text of Rodney Woods v. City of Saginaw (Rodney Woods v. City of Saginaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rodney Woods v. City of Saginaw, (Mich. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

October 21, 2020 Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

160597 & (46) David F. Viviano, Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra RODNEY WOODS, d/b/a RODNEY WOODS Richard H. Bernstein BUILDER, Elizabeth T. Clement Plaintiff-Appellant, Megan K. Cavanagh, Justices

v SC: 160597 COA: 344025 Saginaw CC: 16-029129-CB CITY OF SAGINAW, Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 15, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment holding that the trial court properly granted summary disposition of the plaintiff’s quantum meruit claim under MCR 2.116(C)(8). The plaintiff’s amended complaint and attached exhibits were legally sufficient to plead his claim that the defendant was unjustly enriched by extra-contractual work completed by the plaintiff. See El-Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 504 Mich 152, 159-160 (2019); Wright v Genesee County, 504 Mich 410 (2019). Moreover, the Court of Appeals clearly erred by engaging in appellate fact-finding when it stated that the plaintiff had been “fairly compensated.” We REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the trial court’s alternative ruling that granted summary disposition to the defendant under MCR 2.116(C)(10). The plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the trial judge is DENIED, without prejudice to the plaintiff seeking such relief on remand. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. October 21, 2020 t1014 Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

October 21, 2020 Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

160597 & (46) David F. Viviano, Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra RODNEY WOODS, d/b/a RODNEY WOODS Richard H. Bernstein BUILDER, Elizabeth T. Clement Plaintiff-Appellant, Megan K. Cavanagh, Justices

v SC: 160597 COA: 344025 Saginaw CC: 16-029129-CB CITY OF SAGINAW, Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 15, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment holding that the trial court properly granted summary disposition of the plaintiff’s quantum meruit claim under MCR 2.116(C)(8). The plaintiff’s amended complaint and attached exhibits were legally sufficient to plead his claim that the defendant was unjustly enriched by extra-contractual work completed by the plaintiff. See El-Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 504 Mich 152, 159-160 (2019); Wright v Genesee County, 504 Mich 410 (2019). Moreover, the Court of Appeals clearly erred by engaging in appellate fact-finding when it stated that the plaintiff had been “fairly compensated.” We REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the trial court’s alternative ruling that granted summary disposition to the defendant under MCR 2.116(C)(10). The plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the trial judge is DENIED, without prejudice to the plaintiff seeking such relief on remand. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. October 21, 2020 t1014 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rodney Woods v. City of Saginaw, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodney-woods-v-city-of-saginaw-mich-2020.