Prime Time Int'l Distrib., Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury

• Decision Date: 16 November 2017
• Docket Number: Nos. 336008,No. 335913,Nos. 337267, No. 335914, No. 335916,Nos. 335919,Nos. 335918,335913,s. 335918,s. 335919,s. 336008,s. 337267
• Citation: 322 Mich.App. 46,910 N.W.2d 683
• Parties: PRIME TIME INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellant. MFJ Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, and Maher Jaboro, Plaintiff, v. Department of Treasury, Defendant-Appellant. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Department of Treasury and State Treasurer, Defendants-Appellants. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Department of Treasury and State Treasurer, Defendants-Appellants. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Department of Treasury and State Treasurer, Defendants-Appellants. Chase Cash & Carry, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Department of Treasury, Defendant-Appellant. Chase Cash & Carry, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Department of Treasury, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

322 Mich.App. 46

910 N.W.2d 683

PRIME TIME INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellant.

MFJ Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

Maher Jaboro, Plaintiff,

v.Department of Treasury, Defendant-Appellant.

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Department of Treasury and State Treasurer, Defendants-Appellants.

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Department of Treasury and State Treasurer, Defendants-Appellants.

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Department of Treasury and State Treasurer, Defendants-Appellants.

Chase Cash & Carry, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Department of Treasury, Defendant-Appellant.

Chase Cash & Carry, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Department of Treasury, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 335913

No. 335914

No. 335916

Nos. 335918

Nos. 335919

Nos. 336008

Nos. 337267

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted November 8, 2017, at Detroit.

Decided November 16, 2017, 9:00 a.m.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Laura Moody, Chief Legal Counsel, and Carrie L. Kornoelje, Assistant Attorney General, for the Department of Treasury and the State Treasurer.

Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, PC (by Paul V. McCord) and Matthew C. McManus, PLLC (by William C. Amadeo and Matthew C. McManus) for MFJ Enterprises, Inc.

Varnum LLP (by Thomas J. Kenny and William L. Thompson ) for the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community.

Law Offices of Salem F. Samaan PC (by Salem F. Samaan ) and Varnum LLP (by Thomas J. Kenny and William L. Thompson ) for Chase Cash & Carry, Inc.

Before: Beckering, P.J., and O’Brien and Cameron, JJ.

Per Curiam.

Defendant the Department of Treasury (the Department) appeals as of right three opinions and orders issued by the Court of Claims involving plaintiffs Prime Time International Distributing, Inc., MFJ Enterprises, Inc., and Chase Cash & Carry, Inc. The Department and defendant the State Treasurer appeal as of right an opinion and order involving plaintiff Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Spanning from 2015 to 2016, the Michigan State Police Tobacco Tax Unit seized large amounts of tobacco products from plaintiffs for violations of the Tobacco Products Tax Act (TPTA), MCL 205.421 et seq . Each plaintiff timely requested a hearing before the Department pursuant to MCL 205.429(3). The Department concluded that the seizures and forfeitures were proper in each case. Plaintiffs each filed an appeal in the proper circuit court as mandated under MCL 205.429(4). The Department filed a notice of transfer pursuant to MCL 600.6404(3) in each action so that the cases could be transferred to the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims issued its first opinion on October 17, 2016, holding that the circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction over Prime Time International Distributing, Inc.’s action.¹ The remaining plaintiffs’ actions were likewise transferred back to the circuit court for reasons consistent with the first opinion.² Defendants now appeal the Court of Claims’ decisions, arguing that the Court of Claims Act (CCA), MCL 600.6401 et seq ., vests the Court of Claims with exclusive jurisdiction over these appeals and that they do not fall within the CCA’s jurisdictional exception under MCL 600.6419(5). Defendants claim this exception does not apply because (1) the TPTA does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the circuit court and (2) an appeal under the TPTA is actually an original action. The appeals have been consolidated to advance the administration of the appellate process.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews de novo the question whether the trial court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction. Bank v. Mich. Ed. Ass’n-NEA , 315 Mich.App. 496, 499, 892 N.W.2d 1 (2016). Additionally, "[a] challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims presents a statutory question that is reviewed de novo as a question of law." AFSCME Council 25 v. State Employees’ RetirementSys. , 294 Mich.App. 1, 6, 818 N.W.2d 337 (2011). Moreover, this Court "reviews de novo questions of statutory construction, with the fundamental goal of giving effect to the intent of the Legislature." Cheboygan Sportsman Club v. Cheboygan Co. Prosecuting Attorney , 307 Mich.App. 71, 75, 858 N.W.2d 751 (2014).

III. STATUTORY BACKGROUND

Defendants contend that Court of Claims erred when it held that the circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims. We disagree.

"The Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning it plainly expressed. If the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language is clear, then judicial construction is neither necessary nor permitted. A court is required to enforce a clear and unambiguous statute as written." Walters v. Bloomfield Hills Furniture , 228 Mich.App. 160, 163, 577 N.W.2d 206 (1998). Statutes sharing subject matter or a common purpose are in pari materia and "must be read together as a whole." Bloomfield Twp. v. Kane , 302 Mich.App. 170, 176, 839 N.W.2d 505 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, if there is "tension, or even conflict, between sections of a statute," this Court must, "if reasonably possible, construe them both so as to give meaning to each; that is, to harmonize them." O’Connell v. Dir. of Elections , 316 Mich.App. 91, 98, 891 N.W.2d 240 (2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

A. CIRCUIT COURT JURISDICTION

Circuit courts are courts of general jurisdiction that derive their power from the Michigan Constitution. Id . at 101, 891 N.W.2d 240. The Constitution states that "[t]he circuit court shall have original jurisdiction in all matters not prohibited by law; appellate jurisdiction from all inferior courts and tribunals except as otherwise provided by law; ... and jurisdiction of other cases and matters as provided by rules of the supreme court." Const. 1963, art. 6, § 13. The Revised Judicature Act (RJA), MCL 600.101 et seq ., provides that "[c]ircuit courts have original jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil claims and remedies..." MCL 600.605. The RJA sets forth the circuit court’s jurisdiction with regard to agency decisions as follows:

An appeal shall lie from any order, decision, or opinion of any state board, commission, or agency, authorized under the laws of this state to promulgate rules from which an appeal or other judicial review has not otherwise been provided for by law, to the circuit court of the county of which the appellant is a resident or to the circuit court of Ingham county, which court shall have and exercise jurisdiction with respect thereto as in nonjury cases. Such appeals shall be made in accordance with the rules of the supreme court. [ MCL 600.631.]

However, the RJA provides an exception to the general jurisdiction of the circuit court "where exclusive jurisdiction is given in the constitution or by statute to some other court or where the circuit courts are denied jurisdiction by the constitution or statutes of this state." MCL 600.605. Accordingly, "the circuit court is presumed to have subject-matter jurisdiction over a civil action unless Michigan’s Constitution or a statute expressly prohibits it from exercising jurisdiction or gives to another court exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit." Teran v. Rittley , 313 Mich.App. 197, 206, 882 N.W.2d 181 (2015). "[W]here this Court must examine certain statutory language to determine whether the Legislature intended to deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction," this Court has explained, "[t]he language must leave no doubt that the Legislature intended to deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction of a particular subject matter." Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch. v. Maurizio , 129 Mich.App. 166, 175, 341 N.W.2d 262 (1983).

B. COURT OF CLAIMS JURISDICTION

An exception to the general jurisdiction of the circuit court exists when the Court of Claims is given exclusive jurisdiction. See Parkwood Ltd. Dividend Housing Ass’n v. State Housing Dev. Auth. , 468 Mich. 763, 774, 664 N.W.2d 185 (2003). The Legislature created the Court of Claims, and thus that tribunal "has limited powers with explicit limits on the scope of its subject-matter jurisdiction." Okrie v. Michigan , 306 Mich.App. 445, 448, 857 N.W.2d 254 (2014) (citations omitted). Accordingly, "[t]he jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is subject to Michigan statutory law," and therefore the Court of Claims "does not have extensive and inherent powers akin to those of a constitutional court of general jurisdiction." Id .³ The CCA states that "[e]xcept as provided in sections 6421 and 6440, the jurisdiction of the court of claims, as conferred upon it by this chapter, is exclusive." MCL 600.6419(1). The Court of Claims has jurisdiction

[t]o hear and determine any claim or demand, statutory or constitutional, liquidated or unliquidated, ex contractu or ex delicto, or any demand for monetary, equitable, or declaratory relief or any demand for an extraordinary writ against the state or any of its departments or officers notwithstanding^{[4 ]} another law that confers jurisdiction of the case in the circuit court. [ MCL 600.6419(1)(a).]

However, MCL 600.6419(5) states, "This chapter does not deprive the circuit court of exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the district court and administrative agencies as authorized by law."

C. THE TPTA

"The TPTA ‘is at its heart a revenue statute, designed to assure that tobacco taxes levied in support of Michigan schools are not evaded.’ " K & W Wholesale, LLC v. Dep’t of Treasury , 318 Mich.App. 605, 611, 899 N.W.2d 432 (2017) (citation omitted). Under the TPTA, a

tobacco product held, owned, possessed, transported, or in control of a person in violation of this act, and a vending machine, vehicle, and other tangible personal property containing a tobacco product in violation of this act and any related books and records are contraband and may be seized and confiscated by the department as provided in this section. [ MCL 205.429(1).]

The...