Where a plaintiff law firm has brought a fee-collection action, an individual defendant is entitled to summary disposition despite the plaintiff’s theory is that the defendant made an independent personal promise to pay the plaintiff’s fees.
“This matter is before the Court on Defendant Mordechai Grun’s Motion for Summary Disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), (C)(8), and (C)(10). …
“This fee-collection action arises from Plaintiff Cohen, Lerner & Rabinovitz, P.C.’s (‘Plaintiff”) legal representation of Defendant Vascular Management Services of Novi, LLC (‘VMSN’) in an Oakland County Circuit Court action, captioned Vascular Management Services of Novi, LLC et al. v. EMG Partners, LLC et al., Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 2021-191539-CB (‘Underlying Case’). Plaintiff seeks $107,675.65 in unpaid legal fees, asserting claims for breach of contract, account stated, and quantum meruit against VMSN and Defendant Mordechai Grun (‘Grun’) individually. …
“On or about December 9, 2021, Plaintiff was retained to represent VMSN in the Underlying Case. The named plaintiffs were VMSN and VCOA Management, LLC. Defendant Grun was not a named party but served as VMSN’s sole Manager. Plaintiff represented VMSN in the Underlying Case until withdrawing as counsel on July 24, 2025. …
“Grun moves for summary disposition, arguing that the Complaint does not allege that he personally contracted with Plaintiff or otherwise assumed individual responsibility for VMSN’s legal fees. …
“Plaintiff responds that Grun made a separate, personal promise to pay its fees and relies on interrogatory responses, communications, payments, and deposition testimony concerning that alleged promise. Grun replies that Plaintiff did not allege such a promise in the Complaint. …
“Plaintiff’s present theory is that Grun made an independent personal promise to pay Plaintiff’s fees.
…
“The Complaint, however, does not allege such a promise. Instead, it refers to VMSN and Grun collectively as the ‘Co-Defendants’ and alleges that the ‘Co-Defendants’ retained Plaintiff, agreed to pay Plaintiff’s fees, and breached that agreement. … The Complaint does not allege that Grun individually retained Plaintiff, personally promised to pay Plaintiff’s fees, agreed to be personally responsible for VMSN’s obligation, or otherwise undertook an obligation independent of VMSN.
“Plaintiff relies upon interrogatory responses and other evidence concerning Grun’s communications and payments to establish the alleged personal promise. … But those materials are not pleadings and cannot supply allegations missing from the Complaint for purposes of a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8). …
“Accordingly, the Complaint, as presently pleaded, fails to state a breach-of-contract claim against Grun individually. Defendant’s Motion is therefore GRANTED pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) as to Count I.”