View more from News & Articles or Primerus Weekly

Demorest Law Firm, PLLC
Detroit, Michigan

In Dunn Counsel, PLC v Todd Zappone, Carrie Zappone, and Scrapco, LLC, No. 340790 (January 2019), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a person avails itself to Michigan jurisdiction by retaining and maintaining Michigan counsel in a law matter.
The defendants are citizens of Ohio and were the subject of a civil forfeiture case in the Northern District Court of Ohio. The defendants traveled to Michigan to seek plaintiff’s representation in the matter. The plaintiff represented the defendants in the matter, but defendants failed to pay $60,570.74 in attorney fees. Plaintiff then filed a breach of contract action against defendants in the circuit court for Oakland County, Michigan.

On appeal, the defendants argued that the circuit court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over them. The Appeals Court held that “although defendants’ interaction with plaintiff in Michigan was relatively brief, their establishment of an attorney-client relationship is sufficient to meet the standard set forth in Michigan’s long-arm statute. The Appeals Court then held that due process was satisfied because 1) defendants purposely availed themselves of the benefit of doing business in Michigan, 2) defendants alleged failure to pay for the representation they initiated forms the basis of plaintiff’s complaint, and therefore satisfies the cause-of-action prong of due process, and 3) the availability of plaintiffs access to Michigan during the entire relationship was substantially connected with Michigan to make exercise of jurisdiction over the defendants reasonable.

The defendants also argued that the case should be dismissed due to the forum non conveniens doctrine. The Appeals Court vacated and remanded the circuit courts ruling denying defendants’ motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniensbecause the circuit court did not address any of the Crayfactors in Cray v General Motors Corp., 389 Mich 382, 395-396; 207 Nw2d 393 (1973). The circuit court merely concluded that Michigan was a reasonably convenient forum without any further analysis.

A link to the opinion can be found here: https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-unpublished/2019/340790.html