Loft 310 Wins Unanimous Jury Verdict — The Full Court Record

Fourteen clients sued for refunds on weddings they held anyway — on their original dates, at other venues. Every dollar of those refunds would have come out of events owed to the 125 clients who honored their contracts. We fought for them. Fourteen suits, ten dismissed, one unanimous jury verdict, one award paid, one on appeal.

The unanimous jury verdict for Entertainment Managers LLC

On March 15, 2023, a unanimous jury in Kalamazoo County 9th Judicial Circuit Court cleared Loft 310 and Entertainment Managers LLC — the company that operates the venue, managed by Ryan Reedy — on every count of the lawsuit filed by a client couple (Powers v. Entertainment Managers LLC). The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Lawsuits draw attention when they are filed. What happens after the evidence is tested takes longer to surface. A May 2022 news segment aired the allegations; a December 2025 report covered a ruling against the company. The unanimous verdict, the ten dismissals, and the unanimous appellate reversal in between were not reported. So this page shows how each case actually ended — with the court documents.

What the verdict meant for Entertainment Managers LLC’s clients

Entertainment Managers was one of many wedding venue operators across the state affected by the pandemic shutdown orders.

Out of 125 clients and over 300 events scheduled during 2020–21, roughly fourteen couples chose to hold their events elsewhere and asked to be released from their contracts, including from costs already incurred under them. Those disagreements went to court. The question in each was the same: whether a government order that made a date impossible released a client from the contract, and from costs already incurred under it.

We defended the contracts because the other 125 clients were still owed their events. Paying full refunds to clients who held their weddings elsewhere — out of the same contract the jury later upheld — would have put every one of those events at risk. That was a duty to the many, not hostility to the few.

The record at a glance

• Tried to a jury (1) — unanimous verdict for the company on every count

• Dismissed with prejudice (10 of 14) — no merits ruling against the company

• Judgment on the pleadings (1) — unanimously reversed after the Michigan Supreme Court sent it back

• Private arbitration (1) — award confirmed on narrow procedural review; paid April 2024 as compliance with a court order

• Default judgment (1) — entered after a counsel scheduling error; affirmed 2–1; pending at the Michigan Supreme Court

The case files — every suit against Entertainment Managers LLC

The jury verdict — Powers v. Entertainment Managers LLC

Court filings state that the clients booked three venues in September 2019 for an August 2020 wedding and paid in advance. When the state restricted gatherings, the clients described the payments as refundable deposits. The contract described them as non-refundable progress payments for planning and services already performed.

The case went to trial in Kalamazoo County Circuit Court. Both sides presented witnesses, documents, and arguments. On March 15, 2023, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for the company on every count, and Circuit Judge Curtis J. Bell entered judgment on the verdict — the complaint dismissed in its entirety. This was the case the allegations were tested in — not a default, not a technicality, a verdict on the merits. The other thirteen cases were decided — or never decided — without a jury ever weighing that same language.

Reversed on appeal — Stallworth v. Entertainment Managers LLC

One suit produced a $25,000 judgment decided on the pleadings alone — on the same contract language a jury had upheld, before any evidence was heard. The district court granted it; the circuit court affirmed; a Court of Appeals panel initially declined to hear the appeal.

The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed: on October 3, 2023 it ordered the Court of Appeals to take the appeal. On August 29, 2024, a different panel unanimously reversed both lower courts:

“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 claims on the merits by considering evidence attached to the pleadings, we reverse.”

The case then ended in a stipulated dismissal with prejudice.

• Court of Appeals opinion reversing, No. 363874 (Aug 29, 2024)

The arbitration — Clancy/Hedge v. Entertainment Managers LLC

The only case decided against the company was decided by a private arbitrator — under procedures the contract did not call for — on contract language a jury later upheld unanimously. The difference was not the contract. It was the forum.

The contract sent disputes to binding arbitration under the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The clients first filed under AAA’s consumer procedures; the company declined to take part in a proceeding the agreement did not select, and moved in court to compel arbitration under the contract’s terms. The circuit court granted that motion. The arbitrator then ran the hearing on AAA’s expedited track — over the company’s written objections — which meant no discovery and none of the regular track’s procedural features. She found the company had breached and awarded about $51,613 plus fees.

Michigan courts confirm arbitration awards unless a narrow statutory defect is shown — they do not review whether the arbitrator read the contract correctly. So the one adverse ruling in this record is also the one no court was ever permitted to examine on the merits. Once confirmed, the award was enforceable regardless of whether it was right; the company paid it and the judgment was satisfied in April 2024. Payment under compulsion of a judgment is compliance with a court order, not an admission that the award was correct.

• Court of Appeals opinion affirming, No. 357990 (Feb 2, 2023)

Still pending — Joseph v. Entertainment Managers LLC

One matter remains open. It was decided by default — after a scheduling error by defense counsel, not after any ruling on the same contract a jury upheld. In the Court of Appeals’ own words, the failure to answer on time “appears to be that defense counsel failed to properly calendar the answer’s due date after requesting an extension” — a lapse the majority called “unknowing and unintentional.” The answer was filed before the default could even be served, but a default judgment was entered on June 15, 2022.

On November 25, 2025 the Court of Appeals affirmed 2–1. Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett dissented: she found the company had presented “very strong, if not absolute, defenses” and would have vacated the default. The company applied to the Michigan Supreme Court on February 20, 2026 (No. 169695). We will update this page when the Court acts.

• Court of Appeals opinion affirming, 2–1, No. 369697 (Nov 25, 2025)

• Dissent of Judge Garrett, No. 369697 (Nov 25, 2025)

What we’d tell anyone signing a wedding venue contract

The pandemic tested language that almost nobody reads closely before they sign. These are the questions we would want any couple to ask, of any venue:

• Are my payments deposits, or progress payments for work already done?

• What happens if a government order — not the venue — makes my date impossible?

• How does the contract resolve disputes: court, mediation, or arbitration — and under which rules?

Nobody signing a venue contract in 2019 thought to ask any of this. Everyone should ask it now, of any venue.

Lessons learned

Loft 310 advises businesses to review their contracts and to specify mediation, then arbitration, for resolving disputes. Settle out of court where possible, and be prepared to appeal an adverse ruling.

We are sorry our clients had to watch us draw a hard line during the pandemic. We did so to protect the events our clients had entrusted to us — the overwhelming majority of which went ahead as agreed.

Respectfully,

The Loft 310 team — Entertainment Managers LLC, managed by Ryan Reedy

Published by Entertainment Managers LLC, managed by Ryan Reedy, operator of the Loft 310 venues. All court records referenced are public documents; unpublished records noted as on file are available on request.