The opinion
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision
until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
TORIANO HUDSON, FOR PUBLICATION
November 26, 2024
Plaintiff-Appellant, 3:27 PM
v No. 367902
Wayne Circuit Court
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LC No. 22-007764-CD
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and CAVANAGH and RIORDAN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals by right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant
under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (governmental immunity). This case concerns the question of whether the rule
announced in Christie v Wayne State Univ, 511 Mich 19; 993 NW2d 203 (2023)—i.e., for waiver of
sovereign immunity by the state to apply, the plaintiff must file a written claim or notice of claim with the
clerk of the Court of Claims—applies retroactively. Because we are bound by this Court’s recent opinion
in Landin v Dep’t of Health & Human Servs, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No.
367356), we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. However, as will be
explained in more detail below, we disagree with Landin’s analysis, which appears in conflict with another
recent opinion from the Court, Flamont v Dep’t of Corrections, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024)
(Docket No. 367863). Accordingly, we call for the convening of a special panel under MCR 7.215(J)(3)
to consider the conflict between Flamont and that of Landin relative to the retroactivity of Christie.
I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Toriano Hudson worked as a corrections officer for defendant Department of Corrections.
After a traffic accident during which plaintiff was transporting prisoners as part of his job for defendant,
an investigation was initiated that resulted in defendant issuing several work-related violations to plaintiff.
In addition, one of the prisoners that plaintiff was transporting sued plaintiff and other corrections officers
in federal court, after which plaintiff claimed the African American corrections officers were denied the
same legal representation as the Caucasian officers. Plaintiff filed suit under the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights
Act, (“ELCRA”), MCL 37.2101 et seq., alleging that defendant “intentionally discriminated against
Plaintiff Hudson based on his race” by “treat[ing] Plaintiff differently from similarly situated Caucasian
-1-
employees in the terms and conditions of his employment,” and that defendant retaliated against plaintiff
“for filing complaints of racial harassment.”
It is undisputed that plaintiff did not file a notice with the Court of Claims as required by MCL
600.6431(1), and filed his complaint directly in the circuit court. After the Michigan Supreme Court
decided Christie v Wayne State Univ, 511 Mich 39; 993 NW2d 203 (2023), in which the Supreme Court
concluded that strict compliance with the notice requirement under the Court of Claims Act, (“COCA”),
MCL 600.6401 et seq., was required, defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7).
The question before the trial court was whether the decision in Christie was to be given retroactive effect—
which would be fatal to plaintiff’s case—or whether the decision was to be applied prospectively only.
The trial court agreed with defendant that the Christie decision applied retroactively and granted
defendant’s motion. This appeal followed.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition. Kincaid
v Caldwell, 300 Mich App 513, 522; 834 NW2d 122 (2013). A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(7)
should be granted “because of release, payment, prior judgment, [or] immunity granted by law.” MCR
2.116(C)(7). “When it grants a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(7), a trial court should examine all
documentary evidence submitted by the parties, accept all well-pleaded allegations as true, and construe
all evidence and pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Clay v Doe, 311 Mich
App 359, 362; 876 NW2d 248 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
This Court also reviews de novo matters of statutory interpretation. Moore v Genesee Co, 337
Mich App 723, 727; 976 NW2d 921 (2021).
When interpreting a statute, our primary goal is to give effect to the intent of the
Legislature. If the language of a statute is unambiguous, we presume the Legislature
intended the meaning expressed in the statute. A statutory provision is ambiguous only if
it conflicts irreconcilably with another provision or it is equally susceptible to more than
one meaning . . . . When construing a statute, we must assign every word or phrase its
plain and ordinary meaning unless the Legislature has provided specific definitions or has
used technical terms that have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law.
[Grand Rapids v Brookstone Capital, LLC, 334 Mich App 452, 458; 965 NW2d 232 (2020)
(quotation marks and citation omitted).]
III. ANALYSIS
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred when it granted defendant’s motion for
summary disposition because the decision in Christie should be applied prospectively only, as the rule
announced in Christie amounted to a new rule of law. Under Landin, we are compelled to agree.
Under MCL 600.6431(1), “a claim may not be maintained against this state unless the claimant,
within 1 year after the claim has accrued, files in the office of the clerk of the court of claims either a
written claim or a written notice of intention to file a claim against this state or any of its departments,
commissions, boards, institutions, arms, or agencies.” There is no dispute between the parties that plaintiff
did not comply with this provision because plaintiff did not file a notice of his claim within one year after
the claim accrued. Thus, the outcome of this case depends upon whether the rule in Christie, which
-2-
requires strict compliance with MCL 600.6431(1), applies retroactively to cases pending before Christie
was decided.
In Tyrrell v Univ of Mich, 335 Mich App 254, 262; 996 NW2d 219 (2020), overruled by Christie,
511 Mich 39 (2023), this Court addressed the question of whether the defendants “were immune from suit
because [the] plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of MCL 600.6431.” Considering the
relevant statute, the Court stated that unlike the governmental tort liability act, the Persons with
Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PWDCRA”), MCL 37.1101 et seq., “waived governmental immunity
without establishing any conditions precedent to successfully expose a state defendant to liability.”
Tyrrell, 335 Mich App at 263. Thus, the Court concluded that because “the PWDCRA does not require
compliance with MCL 600.6431 for a plaintiff to proceed with his or her claim against a state defendant,
and MCL 600.6431 does not confer governmental immunity, [the] plaintiff’s failure to comply with MCL
600.6431 when bringing her PWDCRA claim does not implicate governmental immunity.” Tyrrell, 335
Mich App at 264 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, this Court concluded that “regardless of
whether a plaintiff needs to comply with the requirements of MCL 600.6431 to pursue a claim against any
of the state’s departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms, or agencies when proceeding in the
Court of Claims, a plaintiff does not need to comply with the requirements of MCL 600.6431 when
proceeding against such defendants in circuit court.” Tyrrell, 335 Mich App at 268.
The Michigan Supreme Court overruled this Court’s holding in Tyrrell when it decided Christie.
See Christie, 511 Mich at 52. Stating that MCL 600.6431(1)’s notice requirement “applies to all claims
against the state, including those filed in the circuit court, except as otherwise exempted in MCL 600.6431
itself,” the Supreme Court concluded that this Court erred when it interpreted the statute otherwise.
Christie, 511 Mich at 52. This conclusion was required, according to the Supreme Court, because “under
the unambiguous language of MCL 600.6431, any claim against the state, regardless of where it is filed,
must comply with MCL 600.6431(1)’s notice requirements.” Christie, 511 Mich at 57.
While this case was pending, this Court issued a published decision in Flamont, ___ Mich App at
___; slip op at 6, in which the Court held that the rule from Christie was to be given retroactive effect.
The plaintiff in Flamont worked as a corrections officer for the defendant Department of Corrections.
Flamont, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 1. The plaintiff alleged “she was repeatedly required to work
excessive mandatory overtime hours without prior notice,” and that “similarly situated male corrections
officers were not required to work excessive mandatory overtime shifts.” Id. at ___; slip op at 1. The
plaintiff filed a complaint under the ELCRA asserting claims of sex discrimination, but did not file in the
Court of Claims the notice required under MCL 600.6431(1). Flamont, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op
at 2. After the Michigan Supreme Court decided Christie, the defendant moved for summary disposition
under MCL 2.116(C)(7) on the ground that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with MCL 600.6431(1) entitled
the defendant to dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. Flamont, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 2. The trial
court disagreed, concluding that the rule was not retroactive and denied the defendant’s motion. Id. at
___; slip op at 2.
On appeal, we reversed. Id. at ___; slip op at 6. Concerning the question of whether the rule in
Christie was a new rule of law, we stated that it was “evident from the Supreme Court’s reasoning in
Christie that the Court’s decision was based on construing the plain and unambiguous language of MCL
600.6431 to reach a determination that was further supported by the operation of the COCA as a limited
waiver of the state’s sovereign immunity.” Flamont, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 5-6. The Court
noted:
-3-
Our Supreme Court has explained that it does not announce a new rule of law when it
overrules a decision of the Court of Appeals that misinterpreted a statute contrary to the
statute’s plain language, legislative intent, and existing precedent because in that situation,
the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the existing law that was misinterpreted by the Court of
Appeals.
* * *
In Christie, our Supreme Court clearly declared the meaning of the law as it existed,
based on the unambiguous statutory language, and corrected a relatively short-lived
misinterpretation of the law that had served to thwart the legislative intent and the
mandated result. Therefore, because the holding in Christie did not constitute a new rule,
it has full retroactive effect and therefore applies in the present case. [Flamont, ___ Mich
App at ___; slip op at 6 (quotation marks and citations omitted).]
Concluding that the decision in Christie was to be given retroactive effect, the Court reversed the trial
court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Flamont, ___ Mich App at ___;
slip op at 6.
After Flamont was issued, the Court decided Landin, which distinguishes Flamont’s application
of the retroactivity analysis concerning Christie. In Landin, the plaintiff filed her complaint under the
Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), MCL 37.2101 et seq., after this Court issued its decision in
Tyrrell v Univ of Mich, 335 Mich App 254; 966 NW2d 219 (2020).1 The plaintiff did not comply with
MCL 600.6431(1) because she did not file “in the office of the clerk of the court of claims either a written
claim or a written notice of intention to file a claim against” the defendant. Landin, ___ Mich App at ___;
slip op at 3 (quotation marks omitted). This was in contrast to the plaintiff in Flamont, in which the
complaint was filed before this Court decided Tyrrell. See Landin, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 1
(“[T]he question whether [Christie] should be applied retroactively to those cases in which the plaintiff
relied upon the then-binding precedent of Tyrrell did not arise in Flamont.”). The Court, therefore, framed
the issue as “whether Christie should be applied retroactively to post-Tyrrell/pre-Christie cases . . . .”
Landin, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 1.
The Court in Landin first concluded that the holding in Christie, for cases filed post-Tyrrell, was
a new rule of law because:
The precedent set by Tyrrell was clear and unambiguous, i.e., there is no need to comply
with MCL 600.6431(1) in a circuit court action against the state, and the ruling in Christie
was just as clear and unambiguous, i.e., compliance with MCL 600.6431(1) is required
regardless of the judicial forum. The distinction between these two holdings was not
vague, hazy, or indefinite; rather, Christie reflected a 180-degree change in the law, in
1
Recall that in Tyrrell, 335 Mich App at 272, the Court held that “a plaintiff properly bringing a claim in
circuit court against the state or a state defendant to which MCL 600.6431 applies is not required to comply
with MCL 600.6431 for his or her claim to proceed in that court.”
-4-
relation to the governing law defined in Tyrrell. [Landin, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at
6.]
In a footnote, the Court elaborated further:
Since Christie clarified the intent of the Legislature that passed MCL 600.6431
many years ago, it can be said to have determined that it was “always” the law that notice
has to be provided in circuit court cases. However, we do not require nor permit parties to
disregard binding authority even if it is incorrect–until and unless that authority is
overruled. What constitutes the rule of law applicable to a party is, by definition, what the
most recent binding precedent says it is. Simply put, parties must rely on the law as the
binding precedent has defined it. What makes a rule “new” for purposes of retroactivity
analysis does not concern the soundness of the rule enunciated in a decision on which the
party relied; rather the test is whether the rule, even if misguided, was set forth in binding
precedent. While legal theorists may debate whether an overruled decision was ever “the
law” in some ultimate or platonic sense, the reality of litigation is that the applicable rule
of law is defined by the binding precedent in effect at the relevant time. [Landin, ___ Mich
App at ___; slip op at 6 n 6.]
Concluding, therefore, that post-Tyrrell, the rule in Christie was a “new rule of law,” the Court
analyzed the rule under the three-step analysis set forth in League of Women Voters of Mich v Secretary
of State, 508 Mich 520; 975 NW2d 840 (2022).2 Concerning the purpose of the new rule, the Court
remarked that “the Christie Court did not specifically engage in an assessment of the purpose to be served
by its ruling outside of simply determining the intent of the Legislature and giving effect to that intent.”
Landin, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 6. The Court continued:
With respect to the extent of the reliance on the old rule, given that Tyrrell was a
published opinion and represented binding precedent squarely regarding the necessary
steps to take or not to take when suing the state or state entities in circuit court, see MCR
7.215(C)(2) and (J)(1), the extent of the reliance by plaintiff and other similarly-situated
plaintiffs on the old rule was extremely significant.
Finally, with respect to the effect of retroactivity on the administration of justice,
we conclude that this factor strongly favors plaintiff considering that retroactive application
of Christie’s construction of MCL 600.6431(1) would be patently unjust and inequitable.
The administration of justice would not be served and would in fact be circumvented
wholesale by punishing plaintiff with the wholesale loss of her cause of action—without
consideration of its merits—when she did nothing more than abide by the law as set forth
during the pertinent timeframe by this Court in its opinion in Tyrrell, a case directly and
indisputably on point at the time. This would also be the case in regard to plaintiffs in other
suits against the state who were in a similar posture and relied on Tyrrell to guide their
actions. On the other hand, we see no injustice to the state where plaintiff was terminated
2
The three factors to be considered by the Court are: “(1) the purpose to be served by the new rule, (2)
the extent of the reliance on the old rule, and (3) the effect of retroactivity on the administration of justice.”
League of Women Voters, 508 Mich at 565-566 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
-5-
in November 2021 and the lawsuit was filed a mere six months later in May 2022;
therefore, the DHHS received notice of plaintiff’s claims in under a year. [Landin, ___
Mich App at ___; slip op at 6-7.]
The Court’s decision in Landin is in conflict with Flamont and, consequently, this Court’s decision
in the present case is impacted by and, indeed, controlled by Landin. In this case, like the plaintiff in
Landin, the complaint was filed on June 29, 2022, after Tyrrell but before Christie was decided. Under
Landin’s formulation of the retroactivity analysis, the rule under which plaintiff was operating—i.e., the
rule from Tyrrell—was a “new rule of law.” See Landin, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 6. Thus, under
Landin, all of the same considerations concerning the three-part test apply, and this Court is constrained
to follow Landin and reverse the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition.
However, but for Landin, we would affirm the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition, consistent with the holding in Flamont that the rule in Christie was not a “new rule of law”
because the Supreme Court “does not announce a new rule of law when it overrules a decision of the Court
of Appeals that misinterpreted a statute contrary to the statute’s plain language, legislative intent, and
existing precedent . . . .”3 Flamont, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 6.
Reversed and remanded as required under Landin. We declare a conflict with Landin concerning
the retroactivity of Christie. MCR 7.215(J)(2). The question being a matter of first impression, no costs
are awarded to either party. See MCR 7.219(A). We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Michael J. Riordan
3
Plaintiff also argues, for the first time on appeal, that defendant’s litigation conduct waived its claim of
sovereign immunity. Plaintiff did not raise this issue before the trial court and, therefore, has failed to
preserve the argument for appeal. See Walters, 481 Mich at 387. The arguments are, therefore, waived.
See Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co v Bach Servs & Mfg, LLC, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___
(2023) (Docket No. 359090); slip op at 5 (stating that the Court must employ the raise or waive rule and
plain error review does not apply to civil cases).
-6-