## Facts

- Italo M. Parise alleged that from 2002 to 2009 he lost more than $600,000 while gambling at MotorCity Casino in Detroit.
- MotorCity Casino is the business name of Detroit Entertainment, LLC, a Detroit casino licensee regulated by the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act (MGCRA), MCL 432.201 et seq.
- Parise sued Detroit Entertainment to recover his gambling losses under MCL 600.2939(1), a statute allowing recovery of money or goods lost “at any game” from the winner.
- Detroit Entertainment moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), arguing that Parise failed to state a claim because the MGCRA exclusively governs legal, non-Indian casino gambling in Detroit.
- Detroit Entertainment relied on MCL 432.203(3), which provides that “any other law that is inconsistent with [the MGCRA] does not apply to casino gaming” permitted by the MGCRA.
- The trial court agreed that applying MCL 600.2939(1) to lawful MGCRA casino gaming would conflict with the MGCRA and granted summary disposition for Detroit Entertainment.
- Parise appealed as of right, arguing (among other points) that (i) “casino gaming” under the MGCRA is narrower than “gaming” under MCL 600.2939(1), and (ii) the MGCRA regulates casinos, not patrons, so a patron’s loss-recovery action should remain available.

## Issues

1. Whether a Detroit casino patron may use MCL 600.2939(1) to recover gambling losses incurred in lawful “casino gaming” conducted under the MGCRA, given MCL 432.203(3)’s direction that inconsistent laws do not apply to MGCRA-permitted casino gaming.
2. Whether Parise’s proposed distinction between MGCRA “casino gaming” and common-law “gaming” preserves a patron’s right to sue the casino under MCL 600.2939(1).
3. Whether summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) was proper because Parise’s complaint stated no legally viable claim in light of the MGCRA.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the grant of summary disposition and the statutory interpretation questions.
- The court held that MCL 432.203(3) precludes applying MCL 600.2939(1) to losses incurred in lawful Detroit casino gaming regulated by the MGCRA.
- The court rejected Parise’s attempt to separate the casino’s regulated “casino gaming” from the patron’s “gaming” for purposes of loss recovery; the MGCRA’s treatment of “casino gaming” covers the activity authorized by the Act and is not limited to the casino’s side of the wager.
- Treating MCL 600.2939(1) as available against an MGCRA licensee for lawful casino play would conflict with the MGCRA’s statutory framework; the MGCRA, as the later-enacted and more specific statute, controls over the older, general loss-recovery statute in this setting.
- Because Parise’s only theory of recovery depended on a statute displaced in this context, no factual development could cure the defect, and summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) was proper.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to Detroit Entertainment.

## Legal Principles

- When interpreting statutes, courts aim to effect legislative intent as expressed in the statutory text and give effect to each word and clause.
- Statutes addressing the same subject matter may be read in pari materia; if they conflict, the more specific statute controls over the more general statute, and a later-enacted statute may operate as an exception to an earlier one.
- Under the MGCRA, MCL 432.203(3) prevents application of other Michigan laws that conflict with the MGCRA to “casino gaming” authorized by the Act.
- A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings; where a claim is barred as a matter of law, summary disposition is appropriate.

## Conclusion

Parise sought to recoup more than $600,000 in losses from lawful gambling at MotorCity Casino by invoking MCL 600.2939(1), but the Court of Appeals held that the MGCRA’s inconsistency clause, MCL 432.203(3), bars using that older loss-recovery statute against Detroit casino licensees for MGCRA-authorized casino gaming; accordingly, Parise failed to state a claim and the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for Detroit Entertainment was affirmed.


Parise v. Detroit Entertainment, LLC, 811 N.W.2d 98 (2011)