STATE OF

STATE OF MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
IN THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF
OF APPEALS
APPEALS

MALINDA PEGO,
MALINDA ALI HOSSEIN,
PEGO, ALI HOSSEIN, HASSAN,
HASSAN, Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals No.
No.
NEHME, ANN DELISLE,
NEHME, ANN DELISLE, JESSICA
JESSICA
BAREFIELD, NORM
BAREFIELD, SCHINKLE and
NORM SCHINKLE and
WARREN CARPENTER
WARREN CARPENTER Kent Circuit No:
Kent Circuit 24-00658-CZ
No: 24-00658-CZ
Hon. J. Joseph
Hon. J. Joseph Rossi
Rossi
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

vs.
vs.

KRISTINA KARAMO,
KRISTINA KARAMO,

Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant-Appellant’s
Defendant-Appellant's
Application for Leave
Application for to Appeal
Leave to Appeal

** ** ** Decision
Decision Needed
Needed By
By Friday, March 1,
Friday, March 1, 2024
2024 ** ** **
__________________________________________________________________

WARNER N
WARNER ORCROSS &
NORCROSS JUDD, LLP
& JUDD, LLP L OFFICE OF DANIEL
AW OFFICE
LAW DANIEL J.
J. HARTMAN
HARTMAN
Jonathon Lauderbach
Jonathon Lauderbach (P51313)
(P51313) Daniel J. Hartman
Daniel J. Hartman (P512632)
(P512632)
150 Ottawa
150 Ottawa Avenue,
Avenue, NW Suite 1500
NW Suite 1500 P.O.
P.O. Box 307
Box 307

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

Grand Rapids,
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
MI 49503 Petosky
Petosky MIMI 49770
49770
(616)
(616) 752-2000
752-2000 (231) 348-5100
(231) 348-5100
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Defendant
Counsel for Defendant

C OLLINS E
COLLINS FARRELL PC
INHORN FARRELL
EINHORN PC
Donald D. Campbell
Donald D. Campbell (P43088)
(P43088)
Kellie Howard-Goudy (P69009)
Kellie Howard-Goudy (P69009)
4000 Town
4000 Town Center,
Center, 9th
9 Floor
th Floor
Southfield, MI
Southfield, 48075
MI 48075
(248) 355-4141
(248) 355-4141
Donald.Campbell@ceflawyers.com
Donald.Campbell@ceflawyers.com
Kellie.Howard@ceflawyers.com
Kellie.Howard@ceflawyers.com
Co-Counsel for Defendant
Co-Counsel for Defendant

1
 Table of
Table Contents
of Contents

Index of
Index of Authorities
Authorities ................................................................................................ 3
3

Index of
Index of Attachments
Attachments .............................................................................................. 5
5

Orders Appealed From

Orders Appealed and Jurisdictional
From and Jurisdictional Statement
Statement ............................................ 6
6

Statement of
Statement of Questions
Questions Presented
Presented .......................................................................... 77

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 8
Introduction 8

Statement of
Statement of Facts
Facts ................................................................................................... 9
9

Standard of
Standard of Review
Review ............................................................................................... 13
13

Argument.............................................................................................................. 14
Argument 14

A. The
A. The order
order granting
granting plaintiffs’
plaintiffs' motionmotion shouldshould be be vacated
vacated
as its
as retroactive application
its retroactive application is is not
not aa permitted
permitted remedy remedy under under
MCR 3.310
MCR 3.310 ....................................................................................................... 14
14

B. The
B. The order
order granting
granting plaintiffs’ motion for
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
preliminary injunctioninjunction
was effectively
was effectively an
an order
order granting
granting summary summary disposition
disposition for for plaintiffs
plaintiffs
and should
and should be
be reversed
reversed ................................................................................. 15
15

C.
C. Plaintiffs cannot show
Plaintiffs cannot show that
that they are likely
they are likely to
to prevail on the
prevail on the merits . 16
merits .16

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

D. The
D. The harm
harm toto defendant
defendant and and the the public
public interest outweighs the
interest outweighs the
harm to
harm to the applicant, absent
the applicant, absent an an injunction.
injunction. Therefore,
Therefore, the order
the order
granting the extraordinary
granting the extraordinary remedyremedy of of aa preliminary
preliminary injunctioninjunction
should be
should be reversed
reversed ......................................................................................... 17
17

Conclusion and Relief

Conclusion and Relief Requested
Requested .......................................................................... 18
18

Certificate of Compliance
Certificate of Compliance ...................................................................................... 20
20

2
 Index of
Index of Authorities
Authorities

Cases
Cases

Bailey v
Bailey v Schaaf,
Schaaf, 494
494 Mich
Mich 595;
595; 835
835 NW2d 413 (2013)......................................
NW2d 413 (2013) 12
12

Busuito v
Busuito v Barnhill,
Barnhill, 337
337 Mich App 434;
Mich App 434; 976
976 NW2d 60 (2021)
NW2d 60 (2021) ......................... 13
13

Michigan AFSCME
Michigan AFSCME Council
Council 2525 v v Woodhaven-Brownstown
Woodhaven-Brownstown Sch Sch Dist,
Dist,
293 Mich
293 App 143
Mich App 143 (2011)
(2011) ................................................................................... 13
13

People v Babcock,
People v 469 Mich
Babcock, 469 247; 666
Mich 247; 666 NW2d 231 (2003)
NW2d 231 (2003) ................................... 12
12

People v Reincke,
People v Reincke, 261
261 Mich
Mich App
App 264;
264; 680
680 NW2d 923 (2004)
NW2d 923 (2004) .......................... 12
12

Pontiac
Pontiac Fire
Fire Fighters
Fighters Union
Union Loc 376 v
Loc 376 v City
City of of Pontiac,
Pontiac,
482 Mich
482 1; 753
Mich 1; 753 NW2d
NW2d 595595 (2008)
(2008) .................................................................... 13
13

Ronnisch Constr
Ronnisch Constr Group, Inc v
Group, Inc v Lofts on the
Lofts on Nine, LLC,
the Nine, LLC,
499 Mich
499 544; 886
Mich 544; 886 NW2d 113 (2016)
NW2d 113 (2016) ................................................................ 12
12

Sandstone Creek
Sandstone Solar, LLC
Creek Solar, LLC vv Township
Township of of Benton,
Benton,
335 Mich
335 App 683
Mich App 683 (2021)
(2021) ................................................................................... 16
16

Thermatool
Thermatool Corp v Borzym,
Corp v Borzym,
227 Mich
227 App 366;
Mich App 366; 575
575 NW2d 334 (1998)
NW2d 334 (1998) ........................................... 12,
12, 14,
14, 15
15

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

Statutes
Statutes

MCL 600.308(2)(c)
MCL 600.308(2)(c) ................................................................................................ 5
5

Other Authorities
Other Authorities

Beth Leblanc,
Beth Leblanc, Former Ambassador Pete
Former Ambassador Hoekstra Selected
Pete Hoekstra Selected to to Lead
Lead
Michigan GOP,
Michigan THE DETROIT
GOP, THE DETROIT N EWS, (Jan.
NEWS, (Jan. 20,20, 2024),
2024),
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/
2024/01/20/former-ambassador-pete-hoekstra-selected-to-lead-michigan-
2024/ 01/ 20/former-ambassador-pete-hoekstra-selected-to-lead-michigan-
gop/72282097007/
gop/ 72282097007/ ............................................................................................... 9
9

Black’s Law
Black's Dictionary (11
Law Dictionary ed. 2019)
th ed.
(11th 2019) ............................................................ 13
13

Rules
Rules

MCR 3.310
MCR 3.310 ................................................................................................. 7, 10, 13
7, 10, 13

MCR 3.310(A)(1)
MCR 3.310(A)(1) ................................................................................................. 13
13

3
MCR 7.205(A)(1)
MCR 7.205(A)(1) ................................................................................................... 5
5

MCR 7.205(B)(2)
MCR 7.205(B)(2) ................................................................................................... 5
5

Constitutional Provisions
Constitutional Provisions

Mich. Const.
Mich. Art. 1,
Const. Art. 1, §
§ 10
10 .................................................................................... 14
14

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

4
 Index of
Index Attachments
of Attachments

Attachment
Attachment Title
Title
1
1 Order Granting
Order Granting Plaintiffs’
Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary
Motion for Preliminary
Injunction dated February 27, 2024
Injunction dated February 27, 2024

22 Register of Actions
Register of Actions

3
3 Letter
Letter to
to Court Reporter
Court Reporter

44 Complaint
Complaint

5
5 Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Injunction

66 Defendant’s Response
Defendant's Response to Motion for
to Motion for Preliminary
Preliminary
Injunction
Injunction

77 Email
Email dated February 28,
dated February 28, 2024
2024 from
from Matthew
Matthew DePerno
DePerno
to
to Kellie
Kellie L.
L. Howard re "Violation
Howard re “Violation of
of court's
court’s order."
order.”

8
8 Plaintiffs’ Hearing Exhibit
Plaintiffs' Hearing 11
Exhibit 11

9
9 Defendants’ Hearing
Defendants' Hearing Exhibit X
Exhibit X

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

10
10 Defendants’ Hearing
Defendants' Hearing Exhibit
Exhibit JJ

11
11 Affidavit of
Affidavit of Justin
Justin Marcum,
Marcum, Excerpted from
Excerpted from
Defendant’s Hearing Exhibit
Defendant's Hearing Exhibit S S

5
 Orders Appealed
Orders Appealed From and Jurisdictional
From and Jurisdictional Statement
Statement

Defendant-appellant Kristina Karamo seeks leave to appeal from

the trial court's
court’s February 27, 2024 order granting plaintiffs’
plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction.'
injunction.1

Under MCL
Under 600.308(2)(c), this
MCL 600.308(2)(c), this Court has jurisdiction
Court has jurisdiction to hear
to hear
appeals by
appeals by leave
leave granted from interlocutory
granted from orders. Under
interlocutory orders. Under MCR
MCR
7.205(A)(1), an application
7.205(A)(1), an application for
for leave
leave to appeal is
to appeal is timely
timely if
if it is filed
it is filed within
within
twenty-one
twenty-one days of the
days of entry of
the entry of the order being
the order being appealed.2
appealed.2 This
This
application is
application is being
being timely
timely filed
filed within
within twenty-one
twenty-one days of the
days of February
the February
27, 2024
27, 2024 order.
order.

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

11 Attachment
Attachment 1, 1, Order
Order Granting
Granting Plaintiffs’
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Motion for Preliminary
Injunction dated
Injunction February 27,
dated February 27, 2024.
2024.
2
2 MCR
MCR 7.205(B)(2) also requires
7.205(B)(2) also requires aa copy
copy of
of the
the Register of Actions,
Register of Actions, which
which is is
Attachment
Attachment 2. 2. Defendants-appellants
Defendants-appellants ordered
ordered aa copy
copy of
of the hearing
the hearing
transcript,
transcript, Attachment 3, Letter to Court Reporter, and will file it
Attachment 3, Letter to Court Reporter, and will file once
it once
it’s produced.
it's produced.

6
 Statement of
Statement Questions Presented
of Questions Presented

1. Whether
1. Whether anan order
order granting
granting aa preliminary injunction can
preliminary injunction can apply
apply
retroactively to
retroactively to acts
acts that
that occurred
occurred before the issuance
before the issuance of the
of the
order?
order?

The trial
The court answered,
trial court answered, Yes.
Yes.

Plaintiff-appellee
Plaintiff-appellee presumably answer, Yes.
presumably answer, Yes.

Defendant-Appellant answers,
Defendant-Appellant answers, No.
No.

2. Whether
2. Whether aa preliminary injunction that
preliminary injunction that grants
grants the
the same
same relief
relief as
as
the applicant
the applicant would
would achieve
achieve if
if the
the matter is tried
matter is tried on the merits
on the merits is
is
valid?
valid?

The trial
The court answered,
trial court answered, Yes.
Yes.

Plaintiff-appellee
Plaintiff-appellee presumably answer, Yes.
presumably answer, Yes.

Defendant-Appellant answers,
Defendant-Appellant answers, No.
No.

3. Whether
3. Whether plaintiffs
plaintiffs have
have aa substantial
substantial likelihood of success
likelihood of success on the
on the
merits to support
merits to support anan order
order granting
granting their
their request
request for
for preliminary
preliminary
injunction?
injunction?

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

The trial
The court answered,
trial court answered, Yes.
Yes.

Plaintiff-appellee
Plaintiff-appellee presumably answer, Yes.
presumably answer, Yes.

Defendant-Appellant answers,
Defendant-Appellant answers, No.
No.

4. Whether
4. Whether plaintiffs’ alleged irreparable
plaintiffs' alleged irreparable harm
harm outweighs the harm
outweighs the harm
to defendants
to and the
defendants and the public interest in
public interest in order to support
order to support the
the
extraordinary remedy
extraordinary remedy of of aa preliminary injunction?
preliminary injunction?

The trial
The court answered,
trial court answered, Yes.
Yes.

Plaintiff-appellee
Plaintiff-appellee presumably answer, Yes.
presumably answer, Yes.

Defendant-Appellant answers,
Defendant-Appellant answers, No.
No.

7
 Introduction
Introduction

The six Plaintiffs are among the 107 members of the Michigan
Republican State Committee. They allege that they voted to replace

defendant-appellant Kristina Karamo with Peter Hoekstra on January 6,

2024. Karamo asserts that that vote was invalid. The plaintiffs filed a two-
count complaint to challenge Karamo’s
Karamo's title as chair under Committee's
Committee’s

bylaws. Among other things, the complaint sought declaratory relief that
Karamo was properly removed as Chair of the Committee, and that all
actions Karamo took after allegedly being removed as Chair on January 6,
2024 are void and have no force or effect.

On January 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary

injunction under MCR 3.310, incorporating the complaint, and seeking
substantively identical relief: a determination that Karamo was removed
as Chair and that any actions she took after January 6, 2024 are void and of
no effect.

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

After three days of hearing, Judge J. Joseph Rossi entered an order
granting plaintiff’s
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction on February 27,
2024, for the reasons stated on the record. The court held that Karamo was
removed as Chair on January 6, 2024, and further ordered, among other

things, that Karamo is prohibited from holding herself out as Chair and

calling meetings or conducting business in the name of the Michigan

Republican State Committee or the Michigan Republican party. Critically,

the trial court specified that its order granting the motion for preliminary

“has retroactive application to any actions after January 6, 2024

injunction "has
by Ms. Karamo purporting to act as chair."
chair.”

8
 The trial court's
court’s order granting plaintiff’s
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction was based on flawed factual findings, and exceeds the legally
cognizable remedies that may be awarded via preliminary injunction
injunction——
including, ordering retroactive application of injunctive relief. Given the
drastic impact of this order, including that the order, as it stands, voids a

previously noticed MiGOP convention of delegates in Detroit scheduled

for March 2, 2024, Karamo seeks immediate review and consideration of

this application.

Statement of
Statement of Facts
Facts

In February 2023, Karamo was elected as chair of the Michigan

Republican State Committee.3

Committee.3 Since then she has faced criticism and calls

to step down.
down.44 When she didn’t
didn't step down, some members of the
Committee chose to take matters into their own hands.5
hands.5

This faction of members allegedly held a vote on January 6, 2024, to

remove Karamo.6
Karamo.6 Malinda Pego, as co-chair, allegedly became the acting

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

“until a successor [was] elected."7
chair "until elected.”7 Under the bylaws, their actions

triggered review by the subcommittee for policy. The subcommittee for

policy reviewed the January 6, 2024 vote and found it invalid. The matter

then came before a full meeting of the state committee on January 13, 2024.

At that meeting, 83 state committee members and proxies out of possible

107 affirmed the subcommittee report and voted to nullify the January 6,

3
3 Attachment 4, Complaint, If⁋ 13.
r
4 Id. at ⁋⁋ 13-14, 26-27.
4

⁋⁋ 14-16.
5 Id. at mm
5

6 Id. at if
6 ⁋⁋ 36-49.
7 Id. at If⁋ 50.
7

9
2024 meeting as illegitimate. Nevertheless, the faction then allegedly
elected Peter Hoekstra as chair.8
chair.8 Karamo refused to recognize the faction's
faction’s

actions as valid and refused to step down.

down.99

The plaintiffs then filed a two-count complaint against

Karamo.10 Count one asks for a declaration of whether the faction properly
Karamo.1°
removed Karamo under the bylaws."
bylaws.11 Count two claims breach of contract

in that Karamo allegedly breached the bylaws.12

bylaws.12 The complaint requests

the following relief:

a. The December 16, 2023 meeting notice issued by defendant

did not constitute the call to a special meeting in accordance

with the Bylaws;

b. The December 31, 2023 call to a special meeting for January

6, 2024 was proper;

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

c. The January 6, 2024 special meeting called and attended by

Plaintiffs was properly held;

d. A quorum was present at the January 6, 2024 meeting;

8
8 Beth Leblanc, Former Ambassador Pete Hoekstra Selected to Lead
Michigan GOP, THE THE DETROIT
DETROIT N EWS, (Jan. 20, 2024),
NEWS,
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/20/f
ormer-ambassador-pete-hoekstra-selected-to-lead-michigan-
ormer-amb assador-pete-hoekstra-selected-to-lead-michigan-
gop/72282097007/.
9 Attachment 4, Complaint, If
9
⁋ 58.
10
⁋⁋ 67-74.
1° Id. at ThTh
11 ⁋⁋ 67-69.
n Id. at ThTh
12
⁋⁋ 70-74.
12 Id. at if

10
 e. The Petition calling for the removal of defendant as Chair

was properly submitted to the Secretary before the Special

Meeting commenced;

f. The amendment to the Bylaws was properly passed;

g. Defendant was properly removed as Chair of the

Committee;

h. Malinda Pego is the Acting Chair of the Michigan

Republican State Committee; and

i. All actions that defendant took after being removed on

January 6, 2024 are void and have no force or effect.

On January 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary

3.310.13 The Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Injunction under MCR 3.310.13
incorporated the Complaint,14
Complaint,14 and sought substantively identical relief,

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

including, but not limited to:

a. Prohibiting defendant from holding herself out as Chair of the

Michigan Republican State Committee;

b. Conducting any business in the name of the Michigan Republican

State Committee or the Michigan Republican Party;

13 Attachment
13 5,
Attachment 5, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Preliminary Injunction.
14 id.,
14 Id., p 1.
p t

11
 c. Determining that as of January 6, 2024, Defendant was removed as

Chair and plaintiff Malinda Pego became acting Chair;

d. Determining that any actions by Defendant after January 6 are void

and of no effect; and

e. Determining that Ambassador Peter Hoekstra became the chair of

the Michigan Republican State Committee on January 20, 2024.

Defendant responded to the motion on January 29, 2024.15

2024.15

The trial court heard testimony regarding the motion for

parts of on February 21, 22, and 27. During the hearing, evidence was

submitted to the court that irrefutably discounted the factual premise of

plaintiffs’
plaintiffs' claims. For example Plaintiffs’
Plaintiffs' allege, and argue in their motion,
that Article IV(G)(2) of the Bylaws at the time of the January 6 meeting

required that a petition bearing signatures of 50% of the 107-member

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

committee requesting that such a vote be taken shall be filed with the
Secretary.16 Plaintiffs contend that a petition requesting a vote to be taken
Secretary.16
to remove Defendant was filed bearing signatures of 54 members of the

“in good standing."17

Committee "in standing.”17 Yet, Plaintiffs’
Plaintiffs' evidence introduced at
the hearing plainly failed to corroborate that this condition was met.

Nevertheless, Judge J. Joseph Rossi entered an order granting

plaintiff’s
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction on February 27, 2024, which

15Attachment
15Attachment 6, Defendant's
6, Defendant’s Response
Response to Motion for
to Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.
Preliminary Injunction.
16 Attachment
16 5, Plaintiffs’
Attachment 5, Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary
Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
Injunction, p
p
6-7.
6-7.
17 Id., p
17 Id., p 7.
7.
12
essentially granted summary disposition of all of plaintiffs’
plaintiffs' claims. A

transcript of Judge Rossi’s

Rossi's decision is not currently available.

Nevertheless, Judge Rossi’s

Rossi's written order holds that Karamo was
removed as Chair on January 6, 2024, and that Karamo is prohibited from

holding herself out as Chair and calling meetings or conducting business

in the name of the Michigan Republican State Committee or the Michigan

Republican party.

Critically, the trial court held that its order granting the motion for
preliminary injunction "has
“has retroactive application to any actions after

January 6, 2024 by Ms. Karamo purporting to act as chair.”

chair."

Standard of
Standard of Review
Review

A circuit court's
court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for a

preliminary injunction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Thermatool

Corp v Borzym, 227 Mich App 366, 372; 575 NW2d 334 (1998). A circuit

court abuses its discretion when its decision is beyond the range of

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

principled outcomes. People v Reincke, 261 Mich App 264, 268; 680 NW2d

923 (2004), citing People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247, 269; 666 NW2d 231 (2003).

“A trial court necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes an error of

"A

law.” Ronnisch Constr Group, Inc v Lofts on the Nine, LLC, 499 Mich 544, 552;
law."

886 NW2d 113 (2016).

Whether a preliminary injunction can award retroactive relief is a

question of law, which this Court reviews de novo. See Bailey v Schaaf, 494

Mich 595, 603; 835 NW2d 413 (2013).

13
 Argument
Argument

A. The order granting plaintiffs’

plaintiffs' motion should be vacated as its
retroactive application is not a permitted remedy under MCR
3.310.

MCR 3.310(A)(1) provides: "Except

“Except as otherwise provided by

statute or these rules, an injunction may not be granted before a hearing

on a motion for a preliminary injunction or on an order to show cause

why a preliminary injunction should not be issued."

issued.” MCR 3.310(A)(1). A

preliminary injunction is "an

“an extraordinary remedy.”
remedy." Pontiac Fire Fighters

Union Loc 376 v City of Pontiac, 482 Mich 1, 9; 753 NW2d 595 (2008).

“The objective of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status

"The
quo pending a final hearing regarding the parties’
parties' rights.”
rights." Michigan

AFSCME Council 25 v Woodhaven-Brownstown Sch Dist, 293 Mich App 143,

145 (2011) (emphasis added). A preliminary injunction "should

“should only issue

to preserve the status quo, not to change it."

it.” Busuito v Barnhill, 337 Mich

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

App 434, 451; 976 NW2d 60 (2021) (emphasis added). Black's
Black’s Law

Dictionary defines "status

“status quo"
quo” as "The
“The situation that currently exists."
exists.”

Black’s Law Dictionary (11th

Black's (11th ed. 2019).

The order granting the preliminary injunction is fatally flawed

because it enjoins actions that occurred before the order granting the

injunction was entered. This violates the plain language of MCR

3.310(A)(1) that "an

“an injunction may not be granted before a hearing on a

motion for preliminary injunction."

injunction.” (emphasis added). The order's
order’s

retroactive application voiding actions between January 6, 2024 and

February 27, 2024 changes the status quo rather than maintaining the status

14
quo as of the time the injunction is ordered. The court's
court’s order nullifying

pre-injunction acts is akin to the retroactive application of a law that

would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Michigan Constitution. See,
(“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law or
e.g., Mich. Const. Art. 1, § 10 ("No
law impairing the obligation of contract shall be enacted.")
enacted.”) Like an ex post

facto law, the trial court's

court’s order impermissibly voids acts that were valid

when the acts were performed.

The retroactive clause in the order is already being wielded as a

weapon by those associated with plaintiffs’
plaintiffs' side, to undo local
appointments, which may also impact other pending litigation. 18
litigation.Th The
“Violation of court’s
attached email from Matthew DePerno titled: "Violation order”
court's order"
refers to acts before the injunction
injunction—highlighting
—highlighting the reason why such
injunction relief cannot be retroactive.

Because there was no order prohibiting defendants’

defendants' acts between
January 6, 2024 and February 27, 2024, such acts were valid, and the order

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

granting plaintiffs’
plaintiffs' preliminary injunction should be vacated in light of its
retroactive application.

B. The order granting plaintiffs’

plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction was effectively an order granting summary
disposition for plaintiffs and should be reversed.

A court may not issue a preliminary injunction if the injunction will

grant a party complete relief before a hearing on the merits. Thermatool
Corp, 227 Mich App at 376 (1998). In that case, this Court found that the

trial court erred in granting relief via a preliminary injunction that "cannot
“cannot

18
18Attachment 7, Email
Attachment 7, Email dated February 28,
dated February 28, 2024
2024 from
from Matthew
Matthew
DePerno to
DePerno to Kellie L. Howard
Kellie L. Howard re
re "Violation
“Violation of
of court's
court’s order."
order.”
15
be undone if [the opposing party] should prevail at trial.”
trial." Id., at 378
“[W]e conclude that the trial court erred because, in granting the
(holding, "[W]e
preliminary injunction, it granted plaintiffs the relief that they would be

entitled to if they were to prevail in a trial on the merits."

merits.”

Here, the critical aspects of the relief requested in the complaint

and motion for preliminary injunction are substantively identical: i.e.,
removing Karamo as Chair, precluding her from conducting business as

Chair, and voiding actions taken by Karamo after January 6, 2024. Like the
trial court's
court’s order in Thermatool, the effect of granting the relief requested

in plaintiffs’
plaintiffs' preliminary injunction in this case cannot be undone, even if
Karamo prevails at trial. By removing Karamo as Chair and voiding her
acts after January 6, 2024, the court has granted the relief that plaintiffs

would be entitled to if they prevail in a trial on the merits. Under

Thermatool, the order should be reversed.

C. Plaintiffs cannot show that they are likely to prevail on the

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

merits.

As set forth above, plaintiffs contend in their motion that a petition

requesting a vote to be taken to remove Defendant was filed bearing

signatures of 54 members of the Committee "in

“in good standing."19
standing.” 19

Plaintiffs’
Plaintiffs' Hearing Exhibit 11 contains the signed petitions plaintiffs
submitted into evidence to support that they had the required 54
signatures to hold the meeting."
meeting.20 Yet Plaintiffs only submitted 53 signed

petitions requesting a vote to remove defendant as Chair. One petition

entered into evidence in Exhibit 11 is signed by Committee Member Justin

19
19 Id., p
Id., p 7.
7.
20
20 Attachment 8, Plaintiffs’
Attachment 8, Hearing Exhibit
Plaintiffs' Hearing 11.
Exhibit 11.
16
Toth and is a request to remove Dan Hartman as an Officer of the
Committee—not
Michigan Republican State Committee —not Karamo. Four signatories
were not in good standing for failure to pay their dues when they signed
the petitions. 21
petitions.21 Three signatories claimed their signatures were

“misappropriated” and challenged their use to authorize the January 6

"misappropriated"
meeting.22 An affidavit from member Justin Marcum confirms that his
meeting.22
misappropriated.23
signature was misappropriated.23

Plaintiffs’
Plaintiffs' did not meaningfully refute these shortcomings in their
case. They did not call the members who asserted their signatures were
misappropriated to testify. They did not introduce 54 signed petitions into
evidence. Consequently, it was error for the trial court to conclude that the
preliminary injunction should issue given the evidence did not show a

likelihood of success on the merits.

The undisputed Treasurer (Jennifer Stranderfer) and the

undisputed Secretary (Angela Gillisee) of the Mi GOP each testified in the

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

proceeding that the Petitions were neither sufficient nor valid to call the

vote on January 6, 2024.

D. The harm to defendant and the public interest outweighs the

harm to the applicant, absent an injunction. Therefore, the
order granting the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary
injunction should be reversed.

In Sandstone Creek Solar, LLC v Township of Benton, 335 Mich App

683, 704 (2021), this Court articulated the four factors a trial court may

21
21 Attachment 9, Defendants’
Attachment 9, Defendants' Hearing
Hearing Exhibit X.
Exhibit X.
22
22 Attachment 10, Defendants’
Attachment 10, Hearing Exhibit
Defendants' Hearing Exhibit JJ
23 Attachment
23 11, Affidavit
Attachment 11, Affidavit of
of Justin
Justin Marcum,
Marcum, Excerpted from
Excerpted from
Defendant’s Hearing
Defendant's Hearing Exhibit S.
Exhibit S.
17
consider when decided whether to grant a preliminary injunction: (1)
whether the applicant has shown that irreparable harm will occur without
the issuance of an injunction, (2) whether the harm to the applicant absent

an injunction outweighs the harm an injunction would cause to the

adverse party, (3) whether the public interest will be harmed if a
preliminary injunction is issued, and (4) whether the applicant is likely to

prevail on the merits.

As raised in defendant’s
defendant's summary disposition motion, this is an
intra-party dispute that should be resolved through the political process—
process —
not court intervention. As a practical example of the impact of the order,
some delegates may be sidelined. Ottawa County delegates, for example,
may be impacted because they did not submit credentials to both Karamo

(through the official Secretary) and to Hoekstra and his credential

committee. Rather than maintaining the status quo, the order has injected
more chaos into the political process. The order will require a complete

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

change of party administration, as well as cancellation or attempted
cancellations of leases, contracts, and other legal obligations, leaving the
committee in further disarray.

Conclusion and
Conclusion and Relief
Relief Requested
Requested

For the reasons set forth above, defendant requests immediate

consideration and review of this application, and that the trial court's
court’s

order granting plaintiffs’

plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction be vacated
and/or reversed.

18
 Collins Einhorn
Collins Farrell PC
Einhorn Farrell PC

BY:
BY: /s/ Donald
/s/ Donald D.
D. Campbell
Campbell
Donald D.
Donald D. Campbell
Campbell (P43088)
(P43088)
Kellie Howard
Kellie Howard (P69009)
(P69009)
4000 Town
4000 Town Center,
Center, 99th Floor
th Floor

Southfield, MI 48075
Southfield, MI 48075
(248) 355-4141
(248) 355-4141
Donald.Campbell@ceflawyers.com
Donald.Campbell@ceflawyers.com
Kellie.Howard-Goudy@ceflawyers.com
Kellie.Howard-Goudy@ceflawyers.com
Co-Counsel for Defendant
Co-Counsel for Defendant
Dated: February
Dated: February 28,
28, 2024
2024

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

19
 Certificate of
Certificate Compliance
of Compliance

II certify
certify that
that the Defendant—Appellant’s
the Defendant Application for
—Appellant's Application for Leave to
Leave to
Appeal complies
Appeal complies withwith the
the type-volume limitation set
type-volume limitation set forth
forth inin MCR
MCR
7.212(B).
7.212(B). II am
am relying
relying on
on the word count
the word count of
of the word-processing system
the word-processing system
used
used to
to produce
produce this
this document. This brief
document. This brief uses
uses aa 12-point
12-point proportional
proportional
font (Book
font Antiqua), and
(Book Antigua), and the
the word
word count
count for
for this brief is
this brief is 2,535.
2,535.

Collins Einhorn
Collins Farrell PC
Einhorn Farrell PC

BY:
BY: /s/ Donald
/s/ Donald D.
D. Campbell
Campbell
Donald D.
Donald D. Campbell
Campbell (P43088)
(P43088)
Kellie Howard
Kellie Howard (P69009)
(P69009)
4000 Town
4000 Town Center,
Center, 99th Floor
th Floor

Southfield, MI
Southfield, MI 48075
48075
(248) 355-4141
(248) 355-4141
Donald.Campbell@ceflawyers.com
Donald.Campbell@ceflawyers.com
Kellie.Howard-Goudy@ceflawyers.com
Kellie.Howard-Goudy@ceflawyers.com
Co-Counsel for Defendant
Co-Counsel for Defendant
Dated: February
Dated: February 28,
28, 2024
2024

RECEIVED by MCOA 2/28/2024 4:47:48 PM

20