Loft 310 Vindicated by Unanimous Jury Verdict in Covid-19 Case

Wedding venue operator Entertainment Managers LLC and its management team were fully vindicated at trial by a unanimous jury verdict on all counts from allegations by Kristyn & Bryant Powers. The jury trial was held on March 14, 2023, in Kalamazoo County 9th Judicial Circuit Court.

9th Circuit Court Jury Verdict

If you’ve read media coverage of Entertainment Managers LLC or the Kalamazoo Entertainment District, you’ve likely read only one side of the story. Headlines about “loses appeal,” “owes couple $78K,” and “rules against” have dominated search results — while a unanimous jury verdict, a Michigan Supreme Court intervention, and a unanimous Court of Appeals reversal went entirely unreported. This article presents the facts those stories left out, all verifiable from public court records.

What the Media Coverage Left Out

Every lawsuit and arbitration demand filed against Entertainment Managers arose as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to March 2020, in over twelve years of continuous operation and more than three thousand private events, the company had never been sued, never been to arbitration, and never received a legal complaint of any kind. Loft 310 held a 4.7-star review on WeddingWire and a 4.6-star review on The Knot. None of this context appeared in any of the news coverage.

When Governor Whitmer’s executive orders restricted public gatherings in March 2020, one hundred and twenty-five clients were affected. Eighty-five percent chose to reschedule. The company offered every affected client 100% credit — far above the 25-50% required by contract — and ultimately fulfilled nearly 400 events during the pandemic, all as agreed. The media never reported the 400 fulfilled events. They reported the fifteen who sued.

Those approximately fifteen couples chose not to follow the restrictions. They held their weddings at other venues on their original dates — at locations operating in violation of state orders. Having already held their events elsewhere, they then filed pandemic-related lawsuits claiming the company had been unable to host their events and had canceled on them. Neither claim was true.

The courts sided with the parties who ignored the Governor’s orders over the business that upheld them.

The company had an obligation to uphold its contract terms fairly and consistently for all parties. Every client had the same contract, the same terms, and the same option to reschedule at 100% credit. Making exceptions for the approximately fifteen clients who chose to leave would have been inequitable to the hundreds who stayed, followed the restrictions, and honored their agreements. The courts treated each pandemic-related lawsuit in isolation, without considering the company’s duty to apply its policies equally across all of its clients. The media reported each individual judgment without this context.

The Courts

Powers v. Entertainment Managers (March 2023): A Kalamazoo County jury unanimously found in favor of Entertainment Managers on all counts. WWMT covered this case with a one-sided report before trial — but never reported the verdict. The jury heard the full evidence and rejected every claim.

Stallworth v. Entertainment Managers (2023–2024): In a separate COVID wedding case, the Michigan Supreme Court took the extraordinary step of remanding the case back to the Court of Appeals under MCR 7.305(H)(1), after the Court of Appeals had initially denied the company’s appeal “for lack of merit.” On remand, the Court of Appeals unanimously reversed (Swartzle, P.J., K.F. Kelly, Young, JJ., August 29, 2024), finding that the Kalamazoo courts had committed multiple reversible errors:

• Ignoring the company’s responsive pleadings and defenses

• Using the wrong standard of review — “the standard of review for a motion for summary disposition is de novo, not clear error or an abuse of discretion”

• Making impermissible findings of fact and resolving conflicting facts in favor of the plaintiffs

• Treating valid defenses as insufficient — “When a defendant categorically denies a material allegation, it is a valid defense that could deny a plaintiff’s right to recovery”

The Court identified five specific erroneous factual rulings, each contradicting the company’s pleadings, and concluded:

“Because it was error for the district court and circuit court to ignore Entertainment Managers, LLC’s responsive pleadings, make factual determinations, weigh conflicting facts, and decide the Stallworths’ claims on the merits by considering evidence attached to the pleadings, we reverse the circuit court’s order...”

No media outlet reported the Supreme Court’s intervention or the unanimous reversal.

Joseph v. Entertainment Managers (2025): A different Court of Appeals panel issued a split 2-1 decision on November 25, 2025, affirming a default judgment against the company. Media outlets reported this as another loss. Here is what they did not report: James Joseph did not have a contract with the company — the actual contracting parties were the bride and groom, who had been rescheduled twice and received 100% credit each time. The Court of Appeals majority ignored these facts, just as the Kalamazoo courts had done in Stallworth before the Michigan Supreme Court ordered that case remanded. The dissenting judge, Judge Garrett, described the company’s defenses as “very strong, if not absolute.”

In December 2025, WMUK published a story about the Joseph ruling. The Stallworth reversal — a unanimous Court of Appeals opinion involving the same defendant, the same Kalamazoo courts, and the same pattern of ignored defenses — had been issued fifteen months earlier. WMUK did not mention it. Neither did any other outlet. A reporter covering a 2-1 loss chose not to inform readers that the Michigan Supreme Court had already intervened once for this same company, and that the Court of Appeals had already unanimously reversed on nearly identical grounds. The question is why.

The case is now before the Michigan Supreme Court, requesting the same remedy already granted in Stallworth — a remand under MCR 7.305(H)(1).

What No Media Outlet Has Reported

Three cases involving Entertainment Managers. Three outcomes that went unreported:

1. A unanimous jury verdict in the company’s favor — in the same case WWMT covered before trial but never followed up on.

2. A unanimous Court of Appeals reversal — after the Michigan Supreme Court itself ordered reconsideration — finding the Kalamazoo courts had ignored the company’s defenses and misrepresented the facts.

3. A dissenting appellate judge calling the company’s defenses “very strong, if not absolute” — in a case where the plaintiff did not even have a contract with the company. The Michigan Supreme Court is now being asked to intervene a second time.

The full Stallworth opinion, the Joseph dissent, and the pending Supreme Court application are all part of the public court record. We encourage anyone who has read the media coverage to review these documents and draw their own conclusions.

Respectfully,

— Loft 310

Loft 310, located in the Entertainment District in Downtown Kalamazoo, anchored by the Rosenbaum Building, includes multiple venues: Wild Bull, District Square, The Chapel, Sky Deck, Monaco Bay, and The Gatsby.