Associated Builders and Contractors v. Director, Docket No. 124835.

• Citation: 472 Mich. 117,693 N.W.2d 374
• Decision Date: 09 March 2005
• Docket Number: Docket No. 124835.
• Parties: ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, Saginaw Valley Area Chapter, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen M. Wilbur, DIRECTOR OF the Michigan Department of CONSUMER & INDUSTRY SERVICES DIRECTOR and Prosecuting Attorney, Defendants-Appellees, and Michigan State Building & Construction Trades Council, Intervenor/Defendant/Appellee, and Michigan Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Michigan Mechanical Contractors Association, a Michigan Corporation, and Michigan Chapter of Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, a Michigan Corporation, Intervenors/Defendants/Appellees, and Michael D. Thomas, Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney, Intervenor/Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

693 N.W.2d 374

472 Mich. 117

ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, Saginaw Valley Area Chapter, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen M. Wilbur, DIRECTOR OF the Michigan Department of CONSUMER & INDUSTRY SERVICES DIRECTOR and Prosecuting Attorney, Defendants-Appellees, and Michigan State Building & Construction Trades Council, Intervenor/Defendant/Appellee, and Michigan Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Michigan Mechanical Contractors Association, a Michigan Corporation, and Michigan Chapter of Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, a Michigan Corporation, Intervenors/Defendants/Appellees, and Michael D. Thomas, Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney, Intervenor/Appellee.

Docket No. 124835.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 9, 2005.

Masud, Patterson & Schutter, P.C. (by David John Masud and Kraig M. Schutter), Saginaw, MI, for Associated Builders and Contractors, Saginaw Valley Area Chapter.

Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Richard P. Gartner, Assistant Attorney General, for the Consumer and Industry Services Department Director.

Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C. (by John R. Canzano), Saginaw, MI, for the Michigan State Building & Construction Trades Council.

Schmeltzer, Aptaker & Shepard, P.C. (by Gary L. Lieber and Katherine K. Brewer) [Washington, D.C.], and Klimist, McKnight, Sale, McClow & Canzano, P.C. (by John R. Canzano) Southfield, MI, for the Michigan Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc; the Michigan Mechanical Contractors Association, and the Michigan Chapter of the Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors National Association.

Gilbert, Smith & Borrello, P.C. (by David M. Gilbert), Saginaw, MI, for the Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney.

WEAVER, J.

Plaintiff, the Saginaw Valley Area Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of the prevailing wage act (PWA).¹ Plaintiff argues that the PWA is unconstitutionally vague and constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to unions and union contractors.

The circuit court denied defendants' motions for summary disposition regarding the plaintiff's claim that the PWA constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and dismissed plaintiff's vagueness claim. Defendants appealed and plaintiff cross-appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that plaintiff could not seek declaratory relief because plaintiff had alleged no "actual controversy" under the Michigan court rule governing declaratory judgments, MCR 2.605.

We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and hold that plaintiff has presented an "actual controversy" so that plaintiff can seek declaratory relief under MCR 2.605. We do not address the substantive issue regarding the constitutionality of the PWA; instead, we remand to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration and resolution of the defendants' appeal and plaintiff's cross-appeal on the merits.

I

Plaintiff is the Saginaw Valley Area Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors. Associated Builders and Contractors is a nonunion trade association with over two hundred members in the construction industry in thirteen Michigan counties.

Plaintiff's members — contractors, subcontractors, and builders among others — are required by the PWA to pay their workers not less than the wage and benefits prevailing in the locality on projects sponsored or financed by the state. The PWA provides in relevant part:

Every contract executed between a contracting agent and a successful bidder as contractor and entered into pursuant to advertisement and invitation to bid for a state project which requires or involves the employment of construction mechanics ... and which is sponsored or financed in whole or in part by the state shall contain an express term that the rates of wages and fringe benefits to be paid to each class of mechanics by the bidder and all of his subcontractors, shall be not less than the wage and fringe benefit rates prevailing in the locality in which the work is to be performed. [MCL 408.552.]

The PWA provides further that "[a]ny person, firm or corporation or combination thereof, including the officers of any contracting agent, violating the provisions of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor." MCL 408.557.

On July 12, 2000, plaintiff brought this declaratory action challenging the constitutionality of the PWA. Plaintiff alleges that the manner in which the prevailing wage is determined under MCL 408.554 of the PWA constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to unions and union contractors.² Moreover, plaintiff alleges that the resulting determination is unconstitutionally vague because it does not provide an individual of ordinary intelligence notice of the conduct that, if undertaken, would violate the statute.

Plaintiff named as a defendant, Kathleen Wilbur, former Director of the Department of Consumer and Industry Services (CIS), now the Department of Labor and Economic Growth, which oversees the implementation of the PWA. Because the PWA is a criminal statute, plaintiff also named Midland County's prosecuting attorney, who is charged with the enforcement and prosecution of the PWA in Midland County, Michigan. The Saginaw County prosecutor and the Michigan State Building & Construction Trades Council (MSBCTC) intervened by stipulation as defendants. Three union contractor associations, the Michigan Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. (NECA), the Michigan Mechanical Contractors Association (MCA), and the Michigan Chapter of Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Association (SMACNA), also intervened by motion as defendants.

The Midland County prosecutor and defendant-intervenor MSBCTC filed motions under MCR 2.116(C)(4), (8), and (10), arguing that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction under MCR 2.605(A) because plaintiff's complaint did not present an "actual controversy" as required by the court rule. The several defendants also moved for summary disposition on the merits.

On December 15, 2000, the circuit court denied the motions for summary disposition that argued that plaintiff had not met the actual controversy requirement of MCR 2.605(A). Then, on March 20, 2001, the circuit court ruled on the motions for summary disposition on the merits. The court granted the motions regarding plaintiff's vagueness challenge to the PWA. However, the circuit court denied the motions regarding plaintiff's challenge to the PWA as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, thus allowing that claim to proceed.

Defendants appealed by leave granted and plaintiffs cross-appealed from the circuit court's orders. The Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff had alleged no "actual controversy" under MCR 2.605(A). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's denial of defendants' motion for summary disposition of the claim of unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and, in plaintiff's cross-appeal, affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's vagueness claim.³

This Court ordered that oral argument be held with regard to plaintiff's application for leave to appeal.⁴

II

This case is before us on appeals from orders regarding motions for summary disposition, which we review de novo. Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). The interpretation and application of court rules and statutes present a question of law that is also reviewed de novo. Cardinal Mooney High School v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n, 437 Mich. 75, 80, 467 N.W.2d 21 (1991).

III

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment regarding the constitutionality of the PWA. A declaratory judgment is "[a] binding adjudication of the rights and status of litigants ... [which] is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties as to the matters declared...."⁵ Declaratory judgments are procedural remedies. They allow

parties to avoid multiple litigation by enabling litigants to seek a determination of questions formerly not amenable to judicial determination.... [⁶]

The availability of declaratory judgments in Michigan is governed by MCR 2.605. The court rule provides in pertinent part:

(A) Power to Enter Declaratory Judgment.

(1) In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, a Michigan court of record may declare the rights and other legal relations of an interested party seeking a declaratory judgment, whether or not other relief is or could be sought or granted.

(2) For the purpose of this rule, an action is considered within the jurisdiction of a court if the court would have jurisdiction of an action on the same claim or claims in which the plaintiff sought relief other than a declaratory judgment.

The plain text of the declaratory judgment rule makes clear that the power to enter declaratory judgments neither limits nor expands the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court.⁷ The court must have "jurisdiction of an action on the same claim or claims in which the plaintiff sought relief...."⁸ Moreover, the rule requires that there be "a case of actual controversy" and that a party seeking a declaratory judgment be an "interested party," thereby incorporating traditional restrictions on justiciability such as standing, ripeness, and mootness.⁹

This Court has described the "actual controversy" requirement of MCR 2.605(A)(1) as "a summary of justiciability as the necessary condition for judicial relief."¹⁰ Thus,

if a court would not otherwise have subject matter jurisdiction over the issue before it or, if the issue is not justiciable because it does not involve a genuine, live controversy between interested persons asserting adverse claims, the decision of which can definitively affect existing legal relations,

...