MICHAEL KNOLL V CHEWD LLC (Concurring Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHAEL KNOLL, UNPUBLISHED April 26, 2016 Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellant, v No. 325588 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 13-015135-CK 14-003318-CB CHEWD, LLC, Defendant/Counter-PlaintiffAppellee, and CHEWD HOLDINGS, LLC, ABHIJEET KUMAR, BENJAMIN TATUM, and PETER ZORA, Defendants-Appellees. Before: JANSEN, P.J., and SERVITTO and M. J. KELLY, JJ. JANSEN, P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority in all respects except with regard to its conclusion that remand is necessary in order to provide plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his pleadings. Amendment of the complaint would be futile as plaintiff attempts to change the consideration outlined in the agreement from shares in the company to a monetary amount. Because there is no profit, plaintiff cannot show that the shares have value or have diminished in value. Therefore, I agree with the trial court that the lawsuit was premature. Consequently, I would affirm the trial court’s decision to grant summary disposition in favor of defendants. /s/ Kathleen Jansen -1-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.