STATE OF MICHIGANIN THE 37™ CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF CALHOUN
161 E. Michigan Ave. • Battle Creek, MI 49014 • (269) 969-6518
Candice Tyler and John Debay,
Plaintiffs, Hon. Sarah S. Lincolnvs. Docket No. 15-0846 NONarconon Freedom Center, et al,Defendants.
/
FINDING
Defendant Narconon Freedom Center (hereafter NFC) seeks summary disposition in the
instant case pursuant to MCR 2.116 (C)(7) and (C)(8). Defendants first argue that Plaintiffs'
claim is barred by a release that Defendant claims Candice Tyler executed upon entry into theirrehabilitation program.Plaintiffs' response contains affidavits from Plaintiffs Tyler, Debay and a formeremployee of the NFC. These affidavits create sufficient question as to the execution andaccuracy of the release in question to deny NFC's request for summary disposition pursuant toMCR 2.116 (C)(7). The question of whether or not a valid release was executed and applies in
the instant case will be left to the jury.
Defendant NFC further argues that summary disposition should be granted pursuant to
MCR 2.116 (C)(8). A motion under MCR 2.116 (C)(8) should be granted only when the claims
are so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possiblyjustify recovery. Further, courts may only consider only the pleadings when deciding a motion
based on MCR 2.116 (C)(8). MCR 2.116 (G)(5). A review of the pleadings in the instant case
-1-
does not support Defendant's allegation that Plaintiffs have failed to state claims upon which
relief can be granted. Because all well-pleaded allegations are accepted a true, and construed on
the light most favorable to the non-moving party , the Plaintiffs have included in their pleadings
sufficient facts and allegations of damages to allow the instant case to be heard by a jury.Therefore, Defendant Narconon Freedom Center's motion for summary disposition is denied in
its entirety.
Defendant Narconon Eastern United States (hereafter NEUS) seeks summary dispositionin the instant matter under two theories. First, NEUS claims that summary disposition should be
granted pursuant to MCR 2.116 (C)(l), due to lack of personal jurisdiction.
Pursuant to MCL 600.711, Michigan courts may exercise general personal jurisdictionover corporations that are engaged in [t]he carrying on of a continuous and systematic part of its
general business within the state. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction
over the defendant but need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to defeat a motionfor summary disposition. The affidavits, together with any other documentary evidencesubmitted by the parties, must be considered by the court. All factual disputes for the purpose of
deciding the motion are resolved in the plaintiffs (nonmovant's) favor. Jeffrey v RapidAmerican Corp, 448 Mich 178, 184 (1995).
In the instant case, Plaintiffs have presented a prima facie case establishing personaljurisdiction. Applying the court's analysis King v. Ridenour, 749 F. Supp 2d 648 (E.D. Mich.2010), a case provided by Defendant, a defendant who does not maintain offices, personal orreal property; it has never commenced litigation in any court in Michigan; it has never advertisedin Michigan, except insofar as it maintains a website accessible to Michigan residents does not
-2-
demonstrate that it carries on business in a continuous and systematic fashion. However, these
facts are significantly different that those presented by Plaintiffs in the instant case.In the instant case, NEUS admits by way of affidavit that it maintains the website that isdescribed in detail by Plaintiffs. Although NEUS claims that the website is passive and
accessible to anyone in the world , it does not address by way of affidavit the specific
allegations made by Plaintiffs regarding its targeting of Michigan citizens. In the instant case, the
website advertises a drug treatment center located within the state. Further, the websitespecifically advertises Michigan drug rehabilitation. Once a user selects the state of Michigan,the website provides detailed information about the Narconon Freedom Center. The site furtherurges the user to contact them regarding the Michigan facility. Therefore, Defendant NEUS's
motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116 (C)(l) is denied.
Defendant NEUS further argued that summary disposition should be granted because theis no genuine issue of material fact related to the issue of liability. Based upon a review of thefacts, and acknowledging that the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, it is clear that there is a question of material fact related to the issue of damages.
Defendant NEUS's motion for summary disposition is denied as itrelatedtoMCR2.116(C)(10).
Finally, Defendants Narconon International (hereafter, N1) and Association of Better
Living and Education (hereafter, ABLE) seek summary disposition pursuant to both MCR 2.116(C)(l) and (C)(10). Plaintiff alleges that this court has personal jurisdiction over N1 and ABLE
because they do business in Michigan through an alter ego - NFC.Generally, parent and subsidiary corporations are treated as separate entities. For the
corporate veil to be pierced, the plaintiff must allege facts that show (1) that the corporate entity
-3-