SAPA EXTRUSIONS INC V DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY (Per Curiam Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SAPA EXTRUSIONS, INC., formerly known as ALCOA EXTRUSIONS, INC. UNPUBLISHED January 21, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 326414 Court of Claims LC No. 14-000068-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. BALL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 326415 Court of Claims LC No. 14-000069-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 326512 Court of Claims LC No. 13-000044-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. -1- FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 326513 Court of Claims LC No. 14-000088-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY Defendant-Appellee. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 326585 Court of Claims LC No. 15-000013-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 326586 Court of Claims LC No. 14-000029-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. WEBLOYALTY HOLDINGS, INC. & SUBSIDIARIES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 326732 Court of Claims LC No. 15-000057-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. -2- AFFINION GROUP HOLDINGS, INC. & SUBSIDIARIES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 326733 Court of Claims LC No. 15-000056-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. EMC CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 326818 Court of Claims LC No. 14-000145-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. EMC CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 326819 Court of Claims LC No. 13-000119-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 327360 Court of Claims LC No. 12-000102-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. -3- DELUXE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 327725 Court of Claims LC No. 14-000287-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. SCHWAN’S HOME SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 327880 Court of Claims LC No. 15-000096-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 327962 Court of Claims LC No. 12-000083-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 327963 Court of Claims LC No. 12-000122-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. -4- SCHWAN’S HOME SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 328231 Court of Claims LC No. 15-000134-MT DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant-Appellee. Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and JANSEN and FORT HOOD, JJ. PER CURIAM. In these 16 consolidated appeals, plaintiffs are taxpayers who respectively appeal as of right final orders that were entered in each case following a grant of either full or partial summary disposition to defendant under MCR 2.116(I)(1). Each appeal raises identical issues challenging the validity of 2014 PA 282 (“PA 282”), which retroactively withdrew Michigan from the Multistate Tax Compact (“the Compact”) and thereby eliminated a multistate taxpayer’s option to elect the three-factor apportionment formula that is a key provision of the Compact. We affirm. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a grant of summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(1). Gillette Commercial Operations North America & Subsidiaries v Dep’t of Treasury, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2015) (Docket Nos. 325258 et al), lv pending; slip op at 16. MCR 2.116(I)(1) states, “If the pleadings show that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or if the affidavits or other proofs show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the court shall render judgment without delay.” Issues of statutory interpretation and the resolution of constitutional issues are also subject to de novo review. Gillette, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 16. II. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs present multiple state and federal constitutional challenges to PA 282, which are identical in all relevant respects to the arguments raised by the plaintiffs in Gillette. In Gillette, we rejected all of the plaintiffs’ arguments. In particular, we held that the Compact was not a binding agreement on this state but was merely an advisory agreement, such that PA 282’s removal of Michigan from membership in the Compact was not prohibited; no violation of the Contract Clauses of either the federal or state Constitutions occurred. Gillette, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 21. Further, we concluded that “the retroactive repeal of the Compact did not violate the Due Process Clauses of either the state or federal [C]onstitutions or Michigan’s rules regarding retrospective legislation. Nor did it -5- violate the terms of the Compact itself.” Id. at ___; slip op at 22. We also held that the enactment of PA 282 “did not violate the separation of powers provision of the state Constitution[.]” Id. at ___; slip op at 30. In addition, “PA 282 does not violate the Commerce Clause” of the United States Constitution. Id. at ___; slip op at 32. Nor was there a violation of “the right to petition the government under the First Amendment of the federal Constitution or the analogous Michigan provision.” Id. We further held that “the enactment of 2014 PA 282 did not violate the Title-Object Clause, the Five-Day Rule, or the Distinct-Statement Clause of the Michigan Constitution.” Id. at ___; slip op at 34. Finally, summary disposition was not premature because discovery would not have produced relevant support for the plaintiffs’ position. Id. at ___; slip op at 39-40. III. CONCLUSION In short, we rejected in Gillette the same arguments that plaintiffs raise in these consolidated appeals. Thus, plaintiffs’ challenges to PA 282, and their respective challenges to the grant of either full or partial summary disposition in favor of defendant in each case, are devoid of merit. Affirmed. /s/ Michael J. Riordan /s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ Karen M. Fort Hood -6-

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.