Injunctive relief; MCR 3.310(A)(4); Davis v City of Detroit Fin Review Team; Preliminary injunction; Hammel v Speaker of House of Reps; Effect of a valid release of liability; Xu v Gay; Whether a release was fairly & knowingly made; Intent; “Hold harmless” & “indemnify”; Tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy; Health Call of Detroit v Atrium Home & Health Care Servs, Inc; Negligence; Powell-Murphy v Revitalizing Auto Cmtys Envtl Response Trust; Defamation; Ghanam v Does; Privilege; Qualified privilege; Prysak v RL Polk Co; Declaratory relief; MCR 2.605(A)(1); “Actual controversy”; Irreparable harm; Balance of hardships; Public interest; Michigan Minority Supplier Development Council (MMSDC); Minority business enterprises (MBEs)

The court held that while most of plaintiffs’ claims will not likely succeed on the merits or may be barred by a hold-harmless provision, deference to the trial court’s decision to issue them a preliminary injunction was required. Defendant-MMSDC informed plaintiff-Johnson that although plaintiffs-Piston Companies were owned and controlled by a minority group member, none “were managed on a day-to-day basis by one or more minority group members” and thus, did not qualify for MBE certification. Plaintiffs sued for tortious interference with a business relationship, negligence, declaratory relief, and defamation. They “also sought a preliminary injunction reinstating each of the Piston Companies’ MBE certifications and overruling MMSDC’s decertification decision pending the outcome of the case.” The trial court granted their motion for a preliminary injunction. On appeal, the court first found that the hold-harmless provision in the applications for MBE certification “could greatly inhibit plaintiffs’ chances of establishing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.” It next noted that “[b]ecause the evidence does not indicate one way or the other that defendants acted with the intent to cause a breach or termination of plaintiffs’ business relationships or expectancies, and nothing indicates that defendants did something illegal, unethical, or fraudulent, plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their tortious interference with a business relationship claim.” In addition, MMSDC did “not appear to have breached its duty to exercise due care in determining whether the Piston Companies qualified for MBE certification. Thus, plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their negligence claim.” Further, if it turns out “at the end of litigation that the assessment of who runs the day-to-day operations of the Piston Companies is Johnson, i.e., that MMSDC was incorrect, plaintiff will still need to prove that the denials were not implemented in good faith, and the record is not sufficiently developed to show a substantial likelihood of success in that regard.” Moreover, they did not show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claim for declaratory relief. But the court found that certain factors, “and the reputation of the Piston Companies being held out as MBE certified for many years, were sufficient to support the conclusion that plaintiffs could suffer loss of goodwill” absent an injunction, and “the issuance of a preliminary injunction would not significantly harm the public interest.” Affirmed.