Where a plaintiff who applied for unemployment benefits commenced an action in the Court of Claims alleging that, pursuant to MCL 421.31 and MCL 600.1990, the defendants were required to reimburse him for the credit-card servicing fees of $11.25 for each of the two applications he filed, the plaintiff failed to present any facts or law demonstrating that the Legislature intended MCL 421.31 and MCL 600.1990 to provide a private cause of action for recovering credit-card servicing fees.
Judgment for defendants affirmed.
“Plaintiff appeals by right the order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants, and dismissing plaintiff’s claims pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). We affirm.
“This case arises from plaintiff’s desire to recover certain credit-card processing fees related to plaintiff (acting in propria persona ) electronically filing through the MiFILE electronic filing system separate applications in the Supreme Court for leave to appeal orders relating to his claims for unemployment benefits. The MiFILE system charged plaintiff $386.25 for each case filing in Docket Nos. 163548 and 163562, respectively. For each, $375 was the Court’s filing fee, and $11.25 was a credit-card service fee charged by a third-party credit-card vendor.
“The plain language of MCL 421.31 and MCL 600.1990 neither requires defendants to reimburse plaintiff for credit-card service fees he was charged when he paid unnecessary filing fees for his appeals through the MiFILE system, let alone authorizes a claim for recovery of such fees. MCL 421.31 only prevents the charging of fees by the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission or ‘by any court or any officer thereof.’ It does not govern the charging of fees by third-party credit-card servicing companies. Here, it was neither the Supreme Court nor any officer thereof who charged the credit-card service fees to plaintiff, but rather, as noted, a third-party vendor. The plain language of MCL 421.31 does not preclude credit-card servicing companies from charging fees for processing payments remitted through MiFILE, nor does it require those companies to refund such fees in any situation.
“Because plaintiff failed to present any facts or law demonstrating that the Legislature intended MCL 421.31 and MCL 600.1990 to provide a private cause of action for recovering credit-card servicing fees, we decline the invitation to infer a private cause of action under either statute.
“Here, the trial court correctly found that defendants had not converted any funds, because the funds that plaintiff claimed were wrongfully retained were not retained by defendants, but by the credit-card servicing company, who was not a party to this action. Further, as previously stated, all users of the MiFILE system are informed up front that the credit-card service fees are not reimbursable, even when filing fees are refunded. Plaintiff thus failed to state a claim under a theory of conversion.”
White v. State of Michigan; MiLW 08-108013 , 5 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Jansen, J., Murray, J., O’Brien, J.; on appeal from Court of Claims; James E. White, pro se appellant; Cassandra A. Drysdale-Crown for appellee.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0