Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

The district court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil actions when the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000.&nbsp; MCL 600.8301(1).&nbsp; However, as plaintiffs increasingly structure pleadings to stay under this threshold, the Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the district court may retain subject-matter jurisdiction in cases where the plaintiff will seek more than $25,000 at trial, despite pleading lesser damages.&nbsp; In <em>Hodge v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company</em>, No. 149043, the Supreme Court has granted defendant leave to appeal the limited issues of whether a district court is divested of subject-matter jurisdiction when a plaintiff alleges less than $25,000 in damages in his complaint but seeks more than $25,000 in damages at trial, and if not, whether such conduct nevertheless divests the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction on the basis that the amount alleged in the complaint was made fraudulently or in bad faith.

contentpilot/introduction

Linda Hodge brought an action in district court asserting a first-party no-fault claim.&nbsp; At trial, Ms. Hodge presented evidence far in excess of the district court’s $25,000 jurisdictional limit.&nbsp; The jury returned a verdict of $85,957 against State Farm, and the district court entered a judgment of $25,000 plus interest against the insurance company.&nbsp; State Farm appealed in the circuit court which reversed and issued an order stating that the amount in controversy in this case was in excess of the $25,000 jurisdictional limit of MCL 600.8301.&nbsp; The circuit court proceeded to order that the jury verdict and subsequent judgment be reversed and vacated for the reason that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.&nbsp;

core/paragraph

In a consolidated appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s ruling that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and affirmed the orders vacating those judgments.&nbsp; The Michigan Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal this decision.

<a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20150204_S149043_72_01_149043_2015-02-04_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20150204_S149043_72_01_149043_2015-02-04_or.pdf</a>

Partner

Matthew T. “Matt” Nelson

Labor and Employment

MSC to consider parameters of subject-matter jurisdiction for district courts

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 

MSC to consider parameters of subject-matter jurisdiction for district courts

professionals