STEVEN BARRY STOLMAN V DETROIT ENTERTAINMENT LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHARD STIGLMAIER,
UNPUBLISHED
August 31, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 246465
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-026997-NZ
DETROIT ENTERTAINMENT, L.L.C., d/b/a
MOTORCITY CASINO, and JOHN DOE
EMPLOYEES OF DETROIT
ENTERTAINMENT, L.L.C.,
Defendants-Appellants.
STEVEN BARRY STOLMAN, JEFFREY
SMITH, RAYMOND SMITH, WILLIAM
STANKO, and STANLEY J. PITTMAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
No. 246466
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 01-143092-NZ
v
DETROIT ENTERTAINMENT, L.L.C., d/b/a
MOTORCITY CASINO, and JOHN DOE
EMPLOYEES OF DETROIT
ENTERTAINMENT, L.L.C.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Talbot and Borrello, JJ.
BORRELLO, J. (dissenting).
These consolidated appeals are before this Court pursuant to our Supreme Court’s orders,
in lieu of granting leave to appeal, remanding the cases to this Court for consideration as on
leave granted. Defendant challenges the trial court’s order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification. Contrary to the majority, I would affirm the classes, though I believe they should
be modified.
-1-
The majority is correct in its assertion that we review a decision on class certification
under the clearly erroneous standard. In this case, defendants have failed to persuade me that
certification of the two classes was “clearly erroneous.” However, the majority, citing some
technical problems with class inclusion, chooses to deny class certification rather than to modify
the classes consistent with the authority granted to this Court pursuant to MCR 7.216(A)(7).
Concerning the Stiglmaier class, plaintiffs have represented that in determining whether a
patron was arrested for a felony, a misdemeanor, or neither, the description of the offense
contained in defendant’s incident report will control. Thus, contrary to the holding of the
majority, it will not be necessary to conduct individual hearings concerning the offense that led
to the patron’s arrest. Persons arrested for felonies are excluded from the Stiglmaier class.
Additionally, in light of the relevant statutory provisions, plaintiffs’ complaint excludes persons
arrested for misdemeanors by licensed security guards, and persons arrested for first- or seconddegree retail fraud. Similarly, I disagree with the factual conclusion reached by the majority that
the question whether “each putative class member has been falsely imprisoned is a highly
individualized one.” Plaintiffs’ complaint, the allegations of which must be accepted as true for
purposes of our review, alleges that patrons were detained, assaulted, taken to a detention room,
handcuffed to a bench, interrogated, and photographed. Taking these facts as true, and assuming
the arrests were illegal, the class members suffered a common injury.
The majority correctly observes that if a security guard is properly licensed, MCL
338.1080 allows the guard to arrest individuals for a variety of reasons described in MCL
764.15, including “ordinance violation[s].” Thus, the majority correctly asserts that the
composition of the Stiglmaier class also invokes the question whether slot-walking violates MCL
432.218(2)(j). But rather than extinguish the class, the proper remedy is to redefine the class.
Therefore, pursuant to MCR 7.216(A)(7), I would modify the definition of the Stiglmaier class to
the following:
All persons who were permanently barred from going onto the defendant’s
premises and who were detained by a then unlicensed member of defendant’s
security personnel for a reason other than a felony.(1)
Concerning the Stolman class, it is apparent that plaintiffs and the trial court intended to
restrict the class to persons who, factually, were arrested by unlicensed security guards for “slotwalking,” i.e., taking chip, tokens, or credits left behind by other patrons in unattended gaming
machines, and that the pertinent legal issue was whether the conduct in question amounted to a
felony, a misdemeanor, or neither. If the conduct in question was anything other than a felony,
defendant’s unlicensed security guards lacked the authority to arrest persons who engaged in it.
The trial court purposefully omitted plaintiffs’ original suggestion that the coins, tokens, or
credits that were taken must have been “abandoned” because it found that such language
required a determination of liability as a precursor to class membership. But the court’s class
definition seems to presume that all conduct characterized as slot-walking constituted a violation
1
This appears to be what plaintiffs originally intended; it was the trial court that added the
“regardless of the licensure” language.
-2-
of MCL 432.218(2)(j), which is explicitly defined as a felony. Under the court’s definition, any
person engaged in such conduct could be legally arrested by an unlicensed security guard
pursuant to MCL 764.16. It is clear that this is not what plaintiffs intended. Therefore, pursuant
to MCR 7.216(A)(7), I would also modify the class definition of the Stolman class to the
following:
Those persons who were patrons of the defendant and who were detained
taking coins, tokens, or credits from gambling machines, and who were
consequently permanently barred from entering defendant’s casino.
For the reasons set forth in this opinion I dissent from the opinion of the majority.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
-3-
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.