TOWN & COUNTRY STERLING HEIGHTS INC V MARK I WARREN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
TOWN & COUNTRY STERLING HEIGHTS,
INC., d/b/a CENTURY 21 TOWN & COUNTRY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 18, 2003
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 241776
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 01-036276-AZ
MARK I. WARREN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Markey and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by leave granted from a circuit court order setting a hearing on
plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction despite granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition. We reverse. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Plaintiff sued defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress and requested both
monetary and injunctive relief. The trial court entered a temporary restraining order that was
continued pending a hearing to determine whether a permanent injunction should issue. The
court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) but
denied his motion to dissolve the TRO and set the matter for an evidentiary hearing. We review
the trial court’s decision whether to grant or dissolve an interlocutory injunction for an abuse of
discretion. Freeman v Mitchell, 198 Mich 207, 210; 164 NW 445 (1917).
A complaint must plead a cause of action that arguably entitles the plaintiff to judicial
relief. Sheremet v Chrysler Corp, 372 Mich 626, 632; 127 NW2d 313 (1964) (Souris, J.,
concurring); Emerick v Saginaw Twp, 104 Mich App 243, 247; 304 NW2d 536 (1981). There is
no remedy in the legal process for any act not designated a wrong in the law, Atkinson v John E.
Doherty & Co, 121 Mich 372, 382; 80 NW 285 (1899), and thus a complaint may be dismissed
for failure to state a claim if it does not allege any equitably or legally cognizable wrong for
which there is any equitable or legal remedy. Sheremet, supra; MCR 2.116(C)(8).
An injunction – an equitable remedy – may issue when justice requires, when the plaintiff
does not have an adequate remedy at law, and when the plaintiff is in real and imminent danger
of irreparable harm. Charter Twp of Bloomfield v Oakland Co Clerk, 253 Mich App 1, 15; 654
NW2d 610 (2002). In order to obtain such relief, plaintiff must identify some wrong committed
-1-
by the defendant that causes him irreparable harm. Cf. Treasurer of the Committee to Elect
Gerald D Lostracco v Fox, 150 Mich App 617, 621; 389 NW2d 446 (1986); Detroit Newspaper
Publishers Ass’n v Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, 471 F2d 872, 876 (CA 6, 1972).
Because plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, ipso facto plaintiff is not entitled to relief, injunctive or otherwise, and the TRO should
have been dissolved.
Reversed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-2-
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.
