OLIVIA BOITOS V DYNAMIC VISUAL PRODUCTIONS INC (Memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
OLIVIA BOITOS, as Next Friend of JORDYN
BOITOS, a Minor,
UNPUBLISHED
July 7, 2011
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
DYNAMIC VISUAL PRODUCTIONS INC,
SYNCOPATED INC, d/b/a BRAVO NATIONAL
DANCE & TALENT COMPETITION, and
CHAD EDWARDS,
No. 297420
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 08-094338-NO
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and JANSEN and SAAD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor
of defendants1 pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). The trial court granted defendants’ motion for
summary disposition after determining that defendants owed no duty to plaintiff in light of Fultz
v Union-Commerce Assoc, 470 Mich 460; 683 NW2d 587 (2004), and its progeny. Since the
trial court granted defendant’s motion, our Supreme Court issued its opinion in Loweke v Ann
Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2011) (Docket No. 141168,
issued June 6, 2011), which clarifies its analysis in Fultz. Because neither the parties nor the trial
court had the opportunity to consider our Supreme Court’s decision in Loweke in arguing and
deciding this matter, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand for reconsideration in light of
Loweke’s clarification of Fultz. On remand, the trial court has broad discretion to require
additional briefing, documentation or oral argument, as it deems necessary.
1
The order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition was entered in favor of
defendants Dynamic Visual Productions Inc. and Chad Edwards. Defendant Syncopated Inc.,
d/b/a Bravo National Dance & Talent Competition, was dismissed from the case by stipulation of
the parties and is not a party to this appeal.
-1-
On appeal, the parties have raised arguments not related to the Fultz issue. In light of our
decision to remand for reconsideration in light of Fultz, we do not address or decide those
arguments.
Vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not
retain jurisdiction. Neither party having prevailed in full, no costs are awarded under MCR
7.219.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Henry William Saad
-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.
